2 Thessalonians 2:13

[Allan]

In the end, I'll be happy to side with Mounce on this one (as I was happy to side with Schreiner on our last conversation). One thing that troubles me here is this: With all your noted and very apparent learning, to disagree with Mounce (who only happens to agree with me) on this passage would be the second time you have gone against a world-class, world-renowned scholar (not me, of course).

This is not to call your skills, character, or heart into question. But, it does make me scratch my head. Again, I have all the respect in the world for what you are doing--especially in a hard place like Japan.

Hey Arch:smilewinkgrin:

I REALLY don't have much time to spend here as I am suddenly swamped with many things.. which is why I'm not going to get very deep here at all, but if I may. One or two (in a general sense and in contrast with the majority) person who agrees with you does not an unarguable position make. What is the consensus among the scholars on this? And while I believe Mounce is a great scholar, he is not the leading authority on the Greek language and he doesn't seem to hold to the consensus view of other great scholars both equal to and greater than himself (not necessarily that one has to either). Therefore to stand in opposition to him on this issue but instead with the other world renown scholars, is not to be in bad company.

Understand this is not against you, but you seem to put your couple of scholars (at least in these instances in conversing with John) over those of equal or greater scholarship which stand in, usually, the majority, and in opposition to your view of these couple of subjects. But I still encourage you to stand on what you believe is truth and to always (as you do) study it out for yourself that you may grow in grace and truth brother. However don't ignore either what the majority consensus and view the others state. They, like you, have chosen to set their hearts to understanding and not just regurgitating someone's work.

Personally, and when I have the time, I will go back over and look more closely at the passage to better understand how it is to be properly understood. (see what you did) - And if God permit, come back write what I have found, and cite the work as well. Keep yourself in peace brother, and may God continue to richly bless you, your family, and your ministry for His glory. ~Peace~

 

[Van]

ROFLOL Archangel, all the post times I gave you were from my screen giving PDT numbers. I did not jump back and forth.

 

[The Archangel]

ROFLOL Archangel, all the post times I gave you were from my screen giving PDT numbers. I did not jump back and forth.

Then, I suggest you get your eyes checked. Refer to my original post on this subject.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

And the character assassination attempts keep coming from Calvinists. I am getting a lesson in long suffering from my well meaning brothers and sisters.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 says God chose the Thessalonians for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith the truth.
Since 1 Peter 1:1-2 says the chosen aliens were chosen through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, then it is reasonable to accept
that God chooses people for salvation based on crediting the faith in the truth.

Just so you’ll know Van---although I disagree with this conclusion—I have no problem saying I agree to disagree with you-- when you simply make a statement & use Scripture to support it—its when you claim to have knowledge you don’t have & insist on using terminology you have no understanding of—that I find problematic! Van—I still feel if you’d actually get some training—u’d be a good Bible teacher—b/c you are an intelligent individual & have the ability to serve the Lord in great ways—it just depends on if your willing to do what it takes to reach your full potential!

 

[Van]

I have not claimed to have knowledge, I have specifically said I have no knowledge. But I do claim to be able to read folks with knowledge and I base by rebuttals of the spurious claims by Calvinists concerning grammar on those sources.

Second, you are not a mind reader, so to say I do not a working understanding of terminolgy I use is a work of fiction. You might be intending your attacks for evil, but perhaps God is using them for good. I now have a better working understanding of long suffering.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

I have not claimed to have knowledge, I have specifically said I have no knowledge. But I do claim to be able to read folks with knowledge and I base by rebuttals of the spurious claims by Calvinists concerning grammar on those sources.

Second, you are not a mind reader, so to say I do not a working understanding of terminolgy I use is a work of fiction. You might be intending your attacks for evil, but perhaps God is using them for good. I now have a better working understanding of long suffering.

LOL—you poor victim Van—gettn picked on by the big bad Calvinist or in my case the rough neck Reformed! Van—how in the world you turn a compliment into evil attacks is beyond me—but for that matter so are most of your personal theories! Nevertheless, when you actually stick to the Bible & don’t talk out 2 sides of your mouth—(ie in 1 case saying you never claim to be a Greek scholar & in the other insist that your presentation of Greek disproves someone else’s view—which is only slightly hypocritical)—I don’t mind your posts as much. Its to bad you can’t see the value in what I keep challenging you to do (ie get some education so you can bounce your controversial theories off trained Christian professionals) & at least this way—you’d be forced to learn the Greek for your self & would have the opportunity to present your ideas with proper biblical hermeneutics instead of off the wall paste & cuts that only show your lack of understanding in certain areas. God Bless Van---& I’m glad you realize most of us only counteract you b/c we are well meaning & actually care about you as an individual!

 

[Van]

Like Bogart said, first they kick my teeth out, then beat me for mumbling. Hit someone till they whine, then complain they are whiners. LOL

When did I say I was an expect on Greek Grammar? Never, I said the opposite.

I can present a Grammar argument, without being a grammar expert. Notice all my arguments are in English.

I have bounced some of my views off Trained Professionals. Some were out to lunch and I amended them to comform to my understanding of truth. For example, my view of the grammar of James 2:5 where God chose those rich in faith who were poor to the world was validated by an associate professor at a bible school. That is when I learned about the double accusitive object/compliment grammar structure of James 2:5.

Notice none of my assertions have been shown to miss the mark by very much. Calvinists seem to think if they can find one nit to pick, they have refuted my view. Lets leave it that Calvinists do not need more education from ear ticklers, they need to meet other Christians and reach for the truth.

God chooses individuals during their lifetime. Saying it taint so, does not diminish its truth. From prophets chosen from the womb to believers who are poor to the world.

 

[Gabriel Elijah]

Like Bogart said, first they kick my teeth out, then beat me for mumbling. Hit someone till they whine, then complain they are whiners. LOL

When did I say I was an expect on Greek Grammar? Never, I said the opposite.

I can present a Grammar argument, without being a grammar expert. Notice all my arguments are in English.

I have bounced some of my views off Trained Professionals. Some were out to lunch and I amended them to comform to my understanding of truth. For example, my view of the grammar of James 2:5 where God chose those rich in faith who were poor to the world was validated by an associate professor at a bible school. That is when I learned about the double accusitive object/compliment grammar structure of James 2:5.

Notice none of my assertions have been shown to miss the mark by very much. Calvinists seem to think if they can find one nit to pick, they have refuted my view. Lets leave it that Calvinists do not need more education from ear ticklers, they need to meet other Christians and reach for the truth.

God chooses individuals during their lifetime. Saying it taint so, does not diminish its truth. From prophets chosen from the womb to believers who are poor to the world.

While I’ll admit I appreciate your humor---I truly think your missing the point---To be honest it was when I was forced to translate Eph 1:3-14 for a Greek class that my ideas turned to reformed---I see your debating this passage in another thread--& honestly have to say your adding to the passage to make it say what your trying to prove---but since I feel that nothing your saying is heretical (only bad interpretation)—then I’ll be happy to accuse you of eisegesis in this passage & say we can agree to disagree! While I honestly want to say more---for the first time I actually have a peace about you as an individual & don’t wont to stir up a ruckus with you b/c of this— But don’t worry—if I ever feel your stepping outside the bounds of orthodoxy—I’ll be the 1st to point it out ---but until then—peace to you--& I look forward to debating in the future!

 

[John of Japan]

John,

First off, let me say there have been many prayers offered for you--for your personal safety and for your ministry. I certainly hope all things are going well and I hope you are and will remain safe.

Thanks much. Our town is pretty much unchanged by the triple disaster, but we have many friends affected.

Secondly, in the past, I've known you to be a much more careful reader than you are being here. Now, some of your misunderstanding (of the discussion here) might be because you may not have read the posts linked in the OP.

It may be possible, also, that you did not read the Mounce article in the OP.

I weighed in here because I felt that there were juvenile statements being made, and Van was being personally attacked unfairly, starting on p. 5. From there the thread fell apart.

I did read the Mounce article. It was way too brief for me to agree or disagree. I understand that you were happy he agreed with you. But the article has no exegesis, just a quick little devotional based on his view of the verse. How am I supposed to agree or disagree with that? I don't disagree, I just don't think the point is proven yet.

Van has stated, in quite a contradiction, that 1. He does not know the language or grammar and 2. the grammar supports his interpretation.

This does not mean that people should feel free to mock him as several have in this thread. That's un-Christian, and a poor testimony for Calvinists. (Your post 46 was disappointing to me.)

Now, I must say, I really don't have a theological dog in this fight. My theological persuasion is well-known, but I will say that this verse doesn't impact my thoughts one way or the other. What I am arguing against is Van's insistence that this prepositional phrase must be adverbial without any explanation as to why it must. As we found out, he has no knowledge of the Greek language or grammar to offer.

I am not trying to say this verse supports my position. I am only trying to point out that it takes quite a bit of stretching and breaking to support his.

Van is not a Greek guy, I get that. But I don't really believe that you've proven your point. I think your exegesis needs work. For example, what specifically are the usages of eis and en in the passage as per Wallace (or whoever)?

But I don't really have time to get into it more now. I have to head out and do some evangelism then work at the church getting ready for tomorrow, and teach my Greek student at 2:00.

This is what I don't understand about your care in reading my argument. I am addressing both exegesis and translation. Perhaps, again, you didn't read some of the links to earlier conversations between Van and me and, perhaps, I should have made a better effort to clarify and classify the discussion based on those previous conversations--especially when he disparaged the ESV and NIV for turning "salvation" into a verb. Now, I love the ESV, but I know it is not always right. I think it gets "as first fruits" wrong. I know other places where its translation is not the best.

I have a big problem with turning "salvation" into a verb in this passage.

In the end, I'll be happy to side with Mounce on this one (as I was happy to side with Schreiner on our last conversation). One thing that troubles me here is this: With all your noted and very apparent learning, to disagree with Mounce (who only happens to agree with me) on this passage would be the second time you have gone against a world-class, world-renowned scholar (not me, of course).

This is not to call your skills, character, or heart into question. But, it does make me scratch my head. Again, I have all the respect in the world for what you are doing--especially in a hard place like Japan.

Blessings,

The Archangel

Oh, come now, you know that on such issues there are always two sides. One well known scholar will disagree with another at the drop of a hat. Quoting a grammarian on a grammatical principle is one thing. I rarely disagree with Greek scholars in such areas (though I have issues with some Japanese language scholars), since I'm not a scholar but a translator. But quoting a scholar's exegesis and then figuring that is the last word and anyone who disagrees is wrong--you know better than that. If I worked at it I'm sure I could find a world class scholar who disagreed with Mounce on this.

 

[John of Japan]

John

I have been worried about and been praying for you and all over there.Knew you have been busy but still have worried because of your absence from the board.

Good hearing from you.

Thanks for the prayers. Haven't had time for the BB much lately. Our town on Hokkaido is largely unaffected, though I really felt that 7.4 aftershock on Thursday evening. But we have many friends who are in the earthquake area and enduring hardships.

 

[John of Japan]

John—I truly hope all is well (or at least as well as possible considering all that has recently taken place in Japan) & want you to know that we are truly praying for you & those around you during this time of hardship in your home land.
Although we’ve never interacted in a thread before, I’ve seen your posts & read your profile before this & although I didn’t always agree with your conclusions, I’ve always respected the time & effort you put into your thoughts. This being said, I think you misconstrue the purpose of those of us who are opposing Van in this thread. Maybe if you would have read the entire thread or his many past posts—you’d understand the concern of those who are writing against him. To begin with, you need to realize that this is not a Calvinist/Reformed attack on someone who simply won’t agree with a certain understanding of theology (ie won’t conform to the Reformed interpretation), but instead is a rebuke of an individual who comes awfully close to those described in Titus 1:10-11. It’s not that Van’s interpretation of 2 Thess 2:13 is not grammatically possible, it’s the fact that he insists on arguing with evidence that he honestly does not fully comprehend. By calling into question his knowledge of the original language, he is forced to begin to actually study the Greek for himself (and not just parrot an unnamed commentary) if he wants to reply with any counteraction that is at least half way feasible. I for one don’t have a problem with individuals who disagree with my own interpretation as long as they actually understand the terminology they are using to offset my own premise. The problem with Van is that he is a syncretism type thinker & doesn’t mind picking & choosing what he wants from opposing theological ideas & putting them together even if they contradict each other. Further, he will take Scripture out of context to prove points that are obviously nothing more than an attempt to gain some kind of personal acclaim for himself. Then when you show him the observable flaw in his theory, he either fails to give a rebuttal or tosses accusations of ad hom, instead of taking the time to think through his theories, polish them up, & conform them to Scripture. It is his very type that runs the risk of infusing heresy in the church, just for the sake of nonconformity. Just so he can say he is different & thinks for himself, when in reality he is nothing more than a classic example of someone who likes to hear himself talk—simply b/c he loves the sound of his own voice. Despite this situation---John—I will continue to pray for you & yours in Japan, & although we might not see eye-to-eye always theologically speaking—I have great respect for what you are doing with your service to Jesus Christ through your mission work & have nothing but the utmost admiration for you as an individual. God Bless!

Thanks for the prayers and kind words.

I admit I've not been on the BB much lately for obvious reasons and don't know Van. I just felt this thread had gone downhill beginning on p. 5, and hoped to raise the level of discourse. Maybe I should have waited on that--the weekend is here and I have no time to post more here! Take care.

 

[jbh28]

I just felt this thread had gone downhill beginning on p. 5,

That's better than the normal page 2

 

[John of Japan]

That's better than the normal page 2

You mean BB denizens are maturing? :thumbsup:

 

[Van]

Thanks John of Japan for pointing out that my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 was grammatically sound, reflecting the views of many scholars over many years.

Shall we go over it one more time.

God chose you [Thessalonians] as first fruit, for salvation. God is the subject, the one performing the action. The thing acted upon - you is the direct object of the verb, chose. The compliment - for salvation - provides an aspect (describes the purpose) of the verbal idea chose you.

As first fruit provides the timing of the choice, the Thessalonians were among the first to be saved in accordance with the New Covenant in His blood.

For salvation is an adverbial phrase providing the purpose of God's choice - for salvation.

Through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. This adverbial phrase answers the question "How" (through sanctification by the Spirit - the Spirit set us apart in Christ) and the question "why" (God based His choice on faith in the truth, faith He had credited as righteousness.)

Why is this view not the most grammatical view? Here are the claims from the "experts."

(1)The preposition ἐν is governing two separate datives--sanctification and belief. This is true, "en" is connected to two separate datives. But what about this construction suggests the phrase cannot be adverbial? Nothing.

(2) There is a conjunction between the two phrases. This is true, also. But what about this construction suggests the phrases cannot be used adverbially? Nothing.

(3) This prepositional phrase, frankly, is too far away in the sentence flow to modify the verb. This is false. As I understand it, if an adverb or adjective points to more than one verb or noun, then we use proximity to select the most likely meaning. Here the adverbial phrase points away from the noun, and to the verb, so we do not need to use proximity.

Final point concerning all these "grammar" arguments. What the experts are saying is that the phase is adverbial, but is modifying the verbal idea within the noun salvation. So arguments (1) and (2) are self defeating, if the phase modifies "saved - the verbal idea - then it is adverbial and the arguments are fiction.

Bottom line, Paul used inspired words to say what he meant, he could have said "to be saved" but instead said "for salvation." Thus to translate the text based on what the Calvinists would like it to say is without merit.

 

[John of Japan]

Thanks John of Japan for pointing out that my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 was grammatically sound, reflecting the views of many scholars over many years.

Well, at this point I do believe the prepositional phrase is adverbial. However, it is somewhat ambiguous, so I don't deny the possibility that it modifies the noun. And I haven't given a scholarly quote for my view (don't have time), but only given grammatical principles that allow for it.

By the way, it really would help your cause if you would give your sources for the grammatical points you are making. Just saying!

 

[Van]

Yes, John of Japan, I agree, all I am saying is Greek grammar does not preclude my understanding and in fact my view reflects more closely the grammar, does not violate the syntax, than the view offered by Calvinists. Nothing very deep. My source is the NASB translation which in general follows the grammar clues of the underlying Greek text. Naturally, as illustrated in 1 Peter 1:1-2 they may be the ones "violating" the syntax, using an adjective as a verb, so I cannot be too dogmatic in my assertions.

As far as sources, they are internet sources, such as Online Interlinear, which provides the parcing. As far as "en + dative" being used in the sense of "by the means of" or "on the basis of" these views are expressed in numerious "beginning Greek grammar" websites.

Again, thanks John of Japan for presenting truth.

God Bless,

Van

 

[Iconoclast]

Thanks John of Japan for pointing out that my understanding of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 was grammatically sound, reflecting the views of many scholars over many years.:laugh::laugh:



Shall we go over it one more time

No thanks Van...we have seen enough...:thumbs:

 

[Robert Snow]

The bottom line is that the Calvinist interpretation of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 is consistent with Greek grammar...

No even close to the truth. There are many preachers who know Greek who see the falseness of Calvinism. I had professors in blbie college who had doctorates, yet they clearly pointed to Calvinism as being inconsistent with biblical truth.

 

[Rippon]

No [sic]even close to the truth. There are many preachers who know Greek who see the falseness of Calvinism. I had professors in blbie [sic]college who had doctorates, yet they clearly pointed to Calvinism as being inconsistent with biblical truth.

What Bible college did you attend?

 

[Robert Snow]

What Bible college did you attend?

Tennessee Temple University.