Featured A passage in which many struggle

Would it be fair to say not a single other Calvinist agrees with the argument that en + dative is used to show instrumentality, impersonal agency in 2 Thessalonians 2:13. So we have three who bear witness to Calvinism's understanding of scripture, claiming something hidden in the Greek means they are right and it does not say what it says. Can anyone spell nullification.

 

Tis true, Van knows no Greek, but Dr. Daniel B. Wallace knows a little, and I will stand and defend his view. And it should be remembered by Iconoclast, I demonstrated from scripture that God chooses people for salvation through the sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

1) The argument from Calvinism that sanctification does not include the meaning of being set apart for God, was demolished by the NET translation of 1 Peter 1:1-2. This is consistent with Strong's lexicon.

2) The argument that "en" can not be accurately translated as through is shown to be in error by citing several well respected translations that do translate "en" as through, including the NASB, NKJV, HCSB, NET, ESV, NIV and so forth and so on.

3) The argument that Daniel B. Wallace in his book, Back to the Basics, taught "en" was very rarely used to show agency was demolished. It is true en + dative is very rarely used to show personal agency, so Dr. Wallace, but is used to show impersonal agency. So by leaving out "personal" the implication was given that en is not used for agency when the specific was is rarely used for personal agency.

 

Archangel

What's funny about this is that Paul was asked the same question about knowing Greek in Acts:

" And as Paul was to be led into the castle, he said unto the chief captain, May I speak unto thee? Who said, Canst thou speak Greek?" 21:37:laugh:

I have studied Greek for 20 years, 4 years academically, and I have met some who've never even been to college or seminary that know it just as well. For that matter, Hebrew is my native language and I have also met self-taught Hebrew students that know grammatical terms I haven't used since childhood.

The Pharisees also accused Jesus of being 'uneducated'. John 7:15

Archangel, your analysis of my comment on Philippians missed the point. You made it clear that if Van wanted to use the "through" to indicate instrumentality, he would have to use dia, and what I was showing is that's not true. Dia is not always used to show a transition by way of means. It also ignores that plethora of cases where nouns can also be used as adjectives or adverbs within prepositional phrases. I was not arguing for the defense of the dative in an adjective form but the contention you implied that the dative can NEVER be used AT ALL, in ANY FORM to convey instrumentality, and Philippians 4:6 shows that it can.

But you DID offer a conclusion for causation that you KNOW is not specifically supported by the text of 2 Thess 2:13, and it was an assumption based on personal translation which is not supported by Wallace, Mounce (although Mounce doesn't make a clear argument for either direction), Robertson, Nestle or Aland, Pappas, et al.

You also can not argue that the archeis a reference to the beginning of the world, and not the 'first-fruits' of believers in Thessalonica.

All the Greek expositors you rely on admit that this verse does not support the Calvinist interpretation of God SAVING believers before the foundation of the world. When the verse is in context with verse 12, it is clear that since those who are damned in verse 12 are damned because they CHOSE to follow the antichrist and not believe the truth, then those who sanctified believe the truth, not because they were determined to believe, but because belief is what was determined as the instrument of sanctification.

 

Hi DrJamesAch, Calvinists have made at least three efforts to nullify 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Back in the prior thread, found here:
http://www.baptistboard.com/showthread.php?t=71217

It was argued that "through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth" appended to "salvation. Thus the verse was rewritten, turning chosen for salvation through... into chosen to be saved through.... They simply turned the noun into a verb. But the instrumentality or agency was not challenged, it was just said that we were saved through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth. And again it was argued that Dr. Wallace agreed with the alteration. However, I posted the NET translation and quickly found I was a dirt bag and a despicable person.

Next, a Calvinist argued that sanctification only means to be made holy and does not include the meaning of being set apart for God. Misdirection was offered stating en is static, rather than addressing the motion of being set apart in sanctification. However, the meaning can be found in most any lexicon, so two for two the arguments for nullification failed.

Finally, in this thread, exactly opposite of the argument made in the first thread, it was argued that "en" could not be accurately translated as showing instrumentality or by agency of. To add to the confusion, one "expert" said Daniel B. Wallace also said "en" was rarely used for agency. What was left out was Dr. Wallace was referring to personal agency, not impersonal agency.

Bottom line, Calvinism must nullify any and all scripture that teaches the mistaken doctrines of Calvinism are bogus. John 6;29 is rewritten to say this is the work God does, and 2 Thess 2:13 is rewritten to say any number of things other than what it says.

 

As I have stated in the past, I know no Greek and not much English. My recall at 70 ain't what it used to be. Know what I mean?

 

From 2 Thes 2:13 and or any other verses written by Paul or others did Paul in a moment in the twinkling of a eye, by his own rational thinking go from, "Who was before a blasphemer, and a persecutor, and injurious: but I obtained mercy, because I did [it] ignorantly in unbelief. 1 Tim. 1:13 \," to faith of truth, or did he become a believer because God the Father through his Son Jesus called Paul into belief?

Do you believe Paul would have ever become, " a believer," had not God through Jesus called him?

 

God calls us just in the state we are in in unbelief, blind, deaf in death for Him to change us. Jesus is going to do what He say's He will do, but what are you going to do with Jesus? God does not want who we are, but what He is going to make us into.

I have never seen anyone who walks away changed.

Romans 6
Dead to Sin, Alive in Christ

6 What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase? 2 By no means! We are those who have died to sin; how can we live in it any longer? 3 Or don’t you know that all of us who were baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death? 4 We were therefore buried with him through baptism into death in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father, we too may live a new life.

5 For if we have been united with him in a death like his, we will certainly also be united with him in a resurrection like his. 6 For we know that our old self was crucified with him so that the body ruled by sin might be done away with,[Or be rendered powerless] that we should no longer be slaves to sin— 7 because anyone who has died has been set free from sin.

8 Now if we died with Christ, we believe that we will also live with him. 9 For we know that since Christ was raised from the dead, he cannot die again; death no longer has mastery over him. 10 The death he died, he died to sin once for all; but the life he lives, he lives to God.

11 In the same way, count yourselves dead to sin but alive to God in Christ Jesus. 12 Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body so that you obey its evil desires. 13 Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness. 14 For sin shall no longer be your master, because you are not under the law, but under grace.

 

Work of God

Faith of God could refer to God's faith, or to God's kind of steadfast faith, or the faith we have on or toward or in God. The phrase is ambiguous. Thus Calvinism asserts dogmatically it means God's faith, pouring their man-made doctrine into the text.

Love of God could refer to God's love, or to God's kind of sacrificial love, or to the love we have on or toward or in God. The phrase is ambiguous. Thus Calvinism asserts dogmatically it means God's love, pouring their man-made doctrine into the text.

Work of God could refer to God's work, or to God's kind of work, or the work God requires of us. The phrase is ambiguous. Thus Calvinism asserts dogmatically it means work God does, pouring their man-made doctrine into the text.

Will the grammar and syntax help us? What if the grammar points to work God requires? What then would the Calvinist's assert? "Why you know nothing and Daniel B. Wallace said it does not point toward work God requires." And if then, I point out that the translation Dr. Wallace approved, i.e. the NET translation of John 6:29, why I would be putting words in Dr. Wallace's mouth.

And the beat goes on. Calvinism is not only mistaken doctrine, it is defended by absurdity.

Lets take a peak at the grammar of John 6:29.

Lets start with the Greek word translated work. It is a noun (G2014) transliterated "ergon." Now does this noun contain a verbal idea, i.e. to work? Yes. And are the next words (including the article) in the genitive case? Yes. So this might be a subjective genitive, meaning God is the subject of the verbal idea, thus work God does. Hurray, the Calvinists seem to be on to something. But wait, there is more.

Another possibility is that this construction is an objective genitive, meaning that God is the direct object of the verbal idea, thus work for God might be the best translation. In this understanding God receives or requires the work. So the Calvinists might indeed be wrong. Hurray for me. But wait, what if we are both wrong to a degree?

In Greek, we also have the Plenary Genitive, where both ideas, subjective and objective are contained, with the ideas complimenting one another. Thus the work God requires but also provides assistance, might be the idea. I like it, but how would I know if it is the best understanding since I cannot grasp the deep message buried in the Greek.

Bottom line, because of context, the most likely understanding is work of God is an objective genitive meaning "this is the work for God" but if John actually uses double entendre, then the plenary genitive is a possibility.

 

Since you've said:

you really should leave any discussion of Greek to those who have facility in the language. What is more, since you know no Greek, you need to cite whose arguments you are using, since we know these arguments are not your own, otherwise it's plagiarism--which is a serious offense.

Now, about this passage. All your Greek "discussion" is pointless. The key to the interpretation is not this verse but the pericope as a whole.

In v. 28, the Jews ask Jesus "what works must we do?" Jesus' answer in v. 29 is that they must trust in Him.

If you knew Greek, you'd know that the crux of v. 29 is the ἵνα clause is more of the important discussion.

The ἵνα clause is in apposition to the clause "This is the work of God?" The translation, because of the apposition, and of the Johannine custom is: Namely that you believe in him who he has sent."

So, the Jews in v. 28 are looking what [good] works must be done to gain eternal life. Jesus' answer? Believe in me.

These passages speak nothing about if it's God's work or our work if we believe.

However, in response to the grumbling of this same group later in the chapter, Jesus does say that no one comes to him unless the Father draws him (44). He also repeats this after some disciples depart, disgruntled, in v. 65.

What is more, the word "work" in v. 29 is co-opted by Jesus because the Jews ask what "works" need to be done to be saved. One might imagine that Jesus is holding his fingers up to "quote" the word "work."

The Archangel

 

Yet another non denial denial. Was anything I said, i.e. presented from Dr. Wallace, denied? Nope.

Charged with plagiarism once more by the fellow who states Wallace says the opposite of what he states. Anyone caught doing that should be thrown out of any institution of higher learning. Now I stole those words from Archangel.

Next, Archangel tries to nullify the inspired words of God, Jesus did not mean work. Calvinism simply rewrites whatever scripture says. LOL

Just in case Agedman missed it, let me quote Archangel on John 6:28-30:

Even Calvinists should see the absurdity in that desperate effort to avoid the context and grammar of John 6:29.

What is wrong with considering work of God a Apposition Genitive? (Archangel did not actually make that argument but did introduce the word.)

1) work and God are not in the same genitive case.

2) Work contains a verbal idea.

3) God is not a specific type or kind of work.

Thus we are left with either a subjective genitive or objective genitive. The NET (i.e. Dr. Wallace) translates it as an objective genitive, deed [work] God requires.

 

At the end of the day, John 6:29 has been shown to teach the work we must do is believe in Christ. This is the contextual idea, i.e. what must we do... you need to believe. And the grammar supports either an objective genitive or a plenary genitive.

Bottom line, there is no need to struggle with John 6:29.

 

So......?

No, it did not miss the point. You made a poor choice of illustration as the Philippians passage bore no grammatical resemblance to the 2 Thessalonians passage.

I'm really beginning to think you don't read my posts--or think about them--before reacting to my being a Calvinist, because you certainly don't react to my posts, at least not in any thoughtful manner. You already have a long and sordid history of misquoting me and putting words in my mouth, which is very much unappreciated.

The discussion of διά was related to instrumentality. Often, but not always, agency or means is expressed by διά + genitive. Διά + accusative can also express cause. These are more certain, due to the lesser use of διά in the New Testament (some 667 times [1])

On the other hand, as I've already stated, ἐν is a different and more mailable animal. Ἐν is used 2,752 times in the New Testament [2] and, it carries a lot of Hebrew baggage. But, having studied Greek for so long, I'm sure you, of all people, would know this.

Ἐν + dative is, by definition, a stative construction, not transitive.[3] But, the stative nature of some constructions can be over-ridden. As Wallace states: "Stative verbs override the transitive force of prepositions. Almost always, when a stative verb is used with transitive preposition, the preposition's natural force is neutralized, all that remains is a stative idea." [4] Wallace goes on to say that a verb of motion usually overrides a stative preposition. So, all this to say what I've said before: Ἐν + dative is not formulaic, meaning only one thing.

Of course it's supported by the text. You have a stative construction (ἐν + dative) with God being the subject and "do-er" of the action in the sentence.

Man's actions are not in view. God chooses for Himself. He chooses "through" sanctification and belief. But, that sanctification and belief expresses God's agency in choosing, not ours in being chosen.

To say that we are chosen because of our sanctifying ourselves or our believing in the truth is to do violence to the text because our actions are not in view, God's are.

Neither of the disputed translations is settled. There is good evidence to suggest that "first fruits" is the better understanding. But, due to the nature of the word itself and how the manuscripts were written (without spaces) the issue will likely never be settled. Nevertheless, it doesn't change the subject-verb agency of God in the clause we are discussing.

Not in the least. I have never argued that God "saved believers before the foundation of the world." Did He choose the elect before the foundation of the world? Sure. But election is not equivalent to salvation in the semantic sense.

The elect are chosen sometime before time. The elect are redeemed by Christ in His life, death, and resurrection. The elect are saved only when they repent and believe.

Referencing v. 12 isn't particularly helpful because in v. 13, Paul has switched gears. Nothing in v. 12 changes the subject-verb agency of God in v. 13--It is God who chooses believers for Himself. His own agency "does" the sanctification and belief (yet, this is not to say that He believes for us).

You and Van might have traction in your argument if there was another verb to which "in sanctification and belief..." was related. Or you might have traction if the "in sanctification and belief" was states as "your sanctification and belief."

But, as it is, God is the one in the clause who chooses. He does it for Himself. And, He is, therefore, the only Agent in the sanctification and belief of which the verse speaks. In other words, as part of saving His elect, He causes sanctification and belief (through various means) in those whom He has chosen.

The Archangel

[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 357.

[2] Ibid.

[3] Ibid., 358.

[4] Ibid., 359. (Wallace's Emphases)

 

Talk about disinformation, misrepresentation, and no reading! Good golly Miss Molly!!

1) God sets us apart in Christ. Repeat, God sets us apart in Christ. How many times will it take before Archangel understands it is God who transfers us from the realm of darkness into the kingdom of His Son?

2) Does the verse say we sanctify, i.e. make ourselves holy or more holy? No, not all all, no way, certainly not!! Why would Archangel again demonstrate he is arguing against a strawman of his own construction. This is all they have folks, shuck and jive.

3) Does the passage say we choose ourselves by believing in the truth? No, no way, not at all, certainly not!! The idea is God chooses us through faith in the truth. So the means He uses is faith in the truth. If He credits our faith as righteousness, then, and only then, because we are talking completely about His action of choosing, He puts us in Christ. This really is not rocket science!!

 

I guess it's true what they say and what you've got simply isn't fixable.

Your plagiarism is demonstrated by you using Greek words and technical grammatical terms of which, by your own admission, you know nothing about.

You really need to get your head out of your.......the sand. I did not argue for an "Appositional Genitive." If you would have read what I said, I said the ἵνα clause in John 6:29 stands in apposition to "work." When something stands "in apposition to" something it, for lack of a better term, clarifies it.

Of course, since you know no Greek, you can't understand what the ἵνα clause is. Well, poser, here is it is so you can see:

τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ ἔργον τοῦ θεοῦ, ἵνα πιστεύητε εἰς ὃν ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος
​

Of course, you can't know what it says, so here it is spoon-fed to you:

τοῦτό THIS ἐστιν IS τὸ ἔργον THE WORK (singular) τοῦ θεοῦ OF GOD, (this is the "hina" clause, by the way)-->ἵνα NAMELY THAT πιστεύητε YOU ALL BELIEVE εἰς IN ὃν HIM ἀπέστειλεν ἐκεῖνος WHOM HE HAS SENT.

The word, ἔργον, is there...it is translated "WORK." It's where we get our word "ergonomics."

And, you cannot ignore v.28 where the Jews ask about "The works (plural) required for salvation" and hope to get v. 29 correct.

I don't know why I bother.

The Archangel

 

The choosing happens before our believing, not because of it.

The Archangel

 

Being chosen through faith in the truth teaches God used faith in the truth to accomplish the selection. Thus faith before election.

Now do you want to change through faith in the truth to through no faith in the truth. Good golly Miss Molly!!

 

You clearly have no understanding of the passage, of Greek, or even English.

Again, you and your obtuseness simply aren't worth the keystrokes. There's no point in discussing these things with clueless people (that's you, by the way) who's "state" can't be fixed.

The Archangel

 

Read post #134. It is amazing.

To express Dr. Wallace is to claim I independently figured out Greek grammar without any teachers or sources of information. Thus when I say 2 + 2 = 4, I need to cite the name of my second grade teacher who taught me that idea. The argument about Plagiarism is simply fiction folks, the work product stolen from the Calvinist play book.

1) Did this charge address that Archangel said Jesus did not mean it when He said "work." No, a sidestep, an evasion, a misdirection. In other words shuck and jive folks, shuck and jive.

2) Did Archangel say the passage, John 6:28-30 does not address whether its God's work or our work? Yes, so to cover up an absurdity, out comes the Plagiarism charge like a shield, "why you stole the truth and published it as if you were God himself." LOL

3) I say Archangel did not make the argument for apposition genitive, and he said I was mistaken because he did not make that argument. Who is it who is having difficulty, with all his expertize in simply reading my posts? Then he says I need to get my head out of the sand. See the irony folks.

4) Next, inexplicably he asserts anyone with an interlinear could not know what the hina clause was. Good golly miss Molly, he is a legend in his own mind.

5) Yes, we are all asking why you keep posting nonsense, as if anything you have said has merit. You misstated Wallace on the use of en for agency, you misstated my views on 2 Thessalonians 2:13 and you denied John 6:29 says anything about whether it is God's work or our work. Nuff said.

 

In summary, John 6:29 can be accurately translated as "work of God", so the NASB. But this translation is ambiguous because "work of God" can be understood to be "work God does" or "work God requires." The grammar supports either view,i.e a subjective genitive or an objective genitive. Thus context, answering the question what must we do, makes ruling in favor of an objective genitive, i.e. work God requires.

2 Thessalonians 2:13 teaches God chose us for salvation through being set apart by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

a) sanctification means to be set apart for God
b) through faith in the truth indicates God used faith in the truth as the means or basis of selection. ​

 

It is quite helpful to see these vain attempts and false theology exposed for the nonsense they are.We can tell many of Van's ideas in reality do not exist anywhere in the known universe.We can tell that from the english:thumbs:

But then when he tries to give language lectures in an unknown tongue to him, and he evidently does not have the "gift" of interpretation.lol...it is good to see this misguided crusade publically defeated.

So your efforts and fine posts help confirm us in the faith once delivered to the saints. As far as Van goes....he keeps going on and on...until someone throws the towel in for him:thumbs: