A passage in which many struggle

[Van]

I think it is pointless to continue discussion, there is no effort to acknowledge anything. Work of God is said not to be ambiguous, yet Calvinists and non-Calvinists disagree as to the meaning. Thus, either all the scholars who understand the verse as I do were twisting scripture, or the meaning is ambiguous.

The work of God does not say the work God does. To claim they say the same thing is eisegesis, pouring your view into a vague and ambiguous verse. Why do many translations translate it as work God requires? (This includes Calvinists!!)

Next, you nit pick, thus evading the obvious, Strong's supports the translation of en as through, or by agency of, or by implication, instrumentality. Will you acknowledge that every translation, from the KJV to the NASB translates en as through dozens of times? Nope.

I explained why I re-posted and you simply claimed I was in denial. One of us is.

Next you deny that you have time to address my statements.

1) Will you acknowledge en can be translated correctly as through? No.

2) Sanctification refers to setting something apart, thus transported. Will you acknowledge this based on Strong's G37 meaning I posted? Nope.

3) Will you acknowledge God transfers people from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of His Son? Nope

4) Will you acknowledge you were wrong when you claimed God does not transport people? Nope

5) Ask yourself this question, if en cannot be translated correctly to show instrumentality, i.e. by agency of, why do all the translations from the KJV to the NASB do it? You have got to know you are up the creek without a paddle.

6) It comes down to this, Calvinism requires rewriting scripture to say the opposite of what it says. Work God requires becomes work God does. Sanctification means not setting someone or something apart for God.

 

[agedman]

Yep, Clarke got it exactly right. God's work is to influence and He does so in Truth, that we may respond in love of that Truth and that is the acceptable (true) purpose of His work. It is according to His will that we respond to the evidence set before us and yield to the truth, that is what He works for in truth. Otherwise He would be working for something that is meaningless, being already predetermined, how ridiculous to suggest God works for what He already has!

However, Ben, what you posted above isn't what John 6 is stating.

John 6 most definitely does not state "the work God desires to do," or "the work God desires of man to do." Not even, "This is the influence of God." Such renderings arent even implied in the original. Look for yourself at the original language!

Christ states emphatically, "This is the work of God."

John did not misquote Christ.


Wasn't it your posts as well as others of your view that suggested the you all held to the true and most accurate rendering of Scriptures?

Yet, in this thread, the posts by those who oppose the OP demonstrate such a statement has been shown to be inaccurate to what actually takes place. Those whose view determines that God merely influences in truth so human involvement must be the determiner of the acceptance or rejection of salvation have done all the manipulating including a rewrite of the Scriptures to their favor.

Next time you or others make such a claim, look to your own doorstep. For there abides the very truth.

 

[Van]

Where is JOJ or Greektim? Why do they not post that en is often translated as through to show "by agency of" or "instrumentality" when en is followed by a dative noun? Unless someone stands up for truth, falsehood prevails. Agedman is a fine person, full of compassion, but he has been taught self-serving interpretations of well accepted translations.

 

[agedman]

I think it is pointless to continue discussion, there is no effort to acknowledge anything. Work of God is said not to be ambiguous, yet Calvinists and non-Calvinists disagree as to the meaning. Thus, either all the scholars who understand the verse as I do where twisting scripture, or the meaning is ambiguous.

The NASB is not inaccurate. It is your interpretation and not that one that is inaccurate.

This thread (as I just stated to Ben) demonstrates just who is guilty of "twisting scripture, or the meanings..."

Christ said it, John recorded it, and it was accurately translated in the NASB.

You obviously don't like that and desire a translation that is more fitting to your scheme.

Doesn't make the original any different, and doesn't dismiss the inaccuracy of your view.

The work of God does not say the work God does. To claim they say the same thing is eisegesis, pouring your view into a vague and ambiguous verse. Why do many translations translate it as work God requires? (This includes Calvinists!!)

Oh my!

It was YOU that stated that NNE translated the verse(s) as "This is the work of God."

YOU were shown wrong - so now it is eisegesis and not proper translation?

I submit that it is YOUR eisegesis that is inaccurate and not the rendering of the NASB as reflected in the OP.

Next, you nit pick, thus evading the obvious, Strong's supports the translation of en as through, or by agency of, or by implication, instrumentality. Will you acknowledge that every translation, from the KJV to the NASB translates en as through dozens of times? Nope.

I explained why I re-posted and you simply claimed I was in denial. One of us is.

IT is YOU, that want some "movement" that the original does not allow. It is YOU that reside in denial of the truth that "en" is "FIXED" "STATIC" and such other terms that state is is NOT used to show movement. And Strong's agrees with me on this matter.

I have given both the definition and proper examples, yet you refuse both, is not my lack of understanding nor of inappropriate Scripture discernment that is problematic.

Next you deny that you have time to address my statements.

1) Will you acknowledge en can be translated correctly as through? No.

I did. Apparently you missed the statement.

I will quote from that posting.

"Van, again I will illustrate how "through" does not always mean movement.

How does one show ownership? Through the title of a car.

Did the title jump around? Did the title move from car to car?

No, and that is "en" - static, not showing movement of any kind. FIXED in place.

Again the illustration of electrical conduit is FIXED in place in which wiring and therefore energy flows.

Priest's didn't jump around to be sanctified - proclaimed Holy.

The tabernacle didn't jump around to be sanctified - proclaimed Holy.


The temple didn't jump around to be sanctified - proclaimed Holy.

Believers don't jump around to be sanctified - proclaimed Holy."


​

2) Sanctification refers to setting something apart, thus transported. Will you acknowledge this based on Strong's G37 meaning I posted? Nope.

Because setting something apart DOES NOT always mean "transported."

Here is an example: I have a household budget. ALL the money resides down the road in the same bank account. BUT the budget designates what use is for the money. Now, do I actually MOVE the money if I change the amount or add another budget item?

NOT. I set apart that money for that specific use. Didn't mean I went down to the bank, appropriated the funds, established a different account, and physically moved the funds.

Unless you are a friend of Star Trek, not one of the terms in which "sanctification" is used in the Scripture does it mean some movement as being transported."

Van did you get that - NOT ONE time in Scripture have I found the use of Sanctification suggesting something is literally moved or "transported."

I doubt you will desire to agree, but it nevertheless is the truth.

3) Will you acknowledge God transfers people from the realm of darkness into the Kingdom of His Son? Nope

WRONG. I stated agreement - However to use this as an example of "sanctification" is inaccurate.

The topic of which that verse is used is "deliverance" not "sanctification."

Your attempt to jump trains by the use of Colossians 1:13 as support will not result in success.

4) Will you acknowledge you were wrong when you claimed God does not transport people? Nope

Would you please post exactly were I stated this?

I don't recall ever making such a statement.

5) Ask yourself this question, if en cannot be translated correctly to show instrumentality, i.e. by agency of, why do all the translations from the KJV to the NASB do it? You have got to know you are up the creek without a paddle.

BECAUSE, Van, they take "en" at face value - that it is NOT showing movement, and IS a word denoting what is static, fixed...

It is your lack of grasping the "en" that makes YOUR "through" determined to be a moving target.

Look at the illustration, above, to see the use of through that does show static and fixed use.

6) It comes down to this, Calvinism requires rewriting scripture to say the opposite of what it says. Work God requires becomes work God does. Sanctification means not setting someone or something apart for God.

OH, MY.

See, is this not the most obvious example of what is NOT true!!!!!

As I stated on an earlier post and even in the OP; those who have opposed the OP have to do so by manipulating the Scripture, by twisting and inserting their view.

They set up opposition that is pure supposition in which does not conform to the clear reading of John 6.

They refuse the most accurate translation of the passage in preference for some human reasoning that conforms to their thinking and has no foundation in the Scriptures.

They attempt to lay all these claims at those they oppose and do not have the sight to see they have actually deposited them upon their own doorstep.

 

[convicted1]

Where is JOJ or Greektim? Why do they not post that en is often translated as through to show "by agency of" or "instrumentality" when en is followed by a dative noun? Unless someone stands up for truth, falsehood prevails. Agedman is a fine person, full of compassion, but he has been taught self-serving interpretations of well accepted translations.

They're smarter than we are.....:laugh:.....they know to stay out of threads that tend to get heated. Us, not so much......:laugh:

 

[The Archangel]

I don't know why I bother....perhaps it is my deep and abiding affinity for Greek. In any event, Van, I noticed you never responded to this post:

...translate this for us: ὅτι εἵλατο ὑμᾶς ὁ θεὸς ἀπαρχὴν εἰς σωτηρίαν ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος καὶ πίστει ἀληθείας

And, be sure to tell us why each word--especially the prepositions--is translated the way it is.

Now, for this:

Where is JOJ or Greektim? Why do they not post that en is often translated as through to show "by agency of" or "instrumentality" when en is followed by a dative noun? Unless someone stands up for truth, falsehood prevails. Agedman is a fine person, full of compassion, but he has been taught self-serving interpretations of well accepted translations.

The truth is: You don't know Greek.

You say, "Why do they not post that en is often translated as through to show "by agency of" or "instrumentality" when en is followed by a dative noun?"

This really demonstrates your ignorance of Greek. The preposition ἐν is always followed by the dative. So, your question of "... when en is followed by a dative noun" is off by a mile as ἐν is always followed by a dative.

Furthermore, ἐν does not show agency or instrumentality in the way you suppose. Greek is not simply formulaic, as you suppose. ἐν can mean:

1. In
2. In, within, when, while, during
3. With (as in association)
4. Because of
5. By, with
6. With respect to/with reference to
7. With (as in manner)
8. With (as with possession)
9. Standard
10. As an equivalent to εις (with verbs of motion) [1]

What is more, as Wallace argues, ἐν + dative does not express the agency you want to see in the 2 Thessalonians 2:13 passage. Wallace claims, "if ἐν + dative is used to express agency, the noun in the dative must not only be personal, but must also be the agent who performs the action." [2] In fact, only one New Testament example expresses the so-called "Dative of Agency" and it is Luke 23:15 [3]

The "in sanctification" from 2 Thessalonians 2:13 demonstrates this non-agency beautifully:

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification [ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13, ESV)
​

"Sanctification" is not not something the individual does to himself; it is something God does. Sanctification (and belief, for that matter--ἐν governs both dative nouns here) are seen as being used by God to accomplish His goals. "God" is the subject of the sentence; "Chose" is the verb; to be saved--which is a prepositional phrase in Greek, not a verb--is the direct object. "Through sanctification...and belief..." is the indirect object.

God is doing the sanctifying and He is, in some sense, "causing" the belief, simply because He chose the brothers as the firstfruits.

If you want to look for instrumentality, if you want to see us being chosen "by means of" sanctification and belief, you'd need to see the preposition δια + genitive (or even, perhaps, the accusative).

Just because you can look at Strongs doesn't mean you have the first inkling about Greek. One needs to roll their sleeves up and get into it, to curse at it and to curse it, and to keep coming back to it over and over again because no matter how much you struggle with it you love it and won't let it go.

The Archangel


[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 372.

[2] Ibid., 373

[3] Ibid.

 

[convicted1]

I know why you responded, Brother AA. You were "effectually drawn" to it.... :wavey:

 

[The Archangel]

I know why you responded, Brother AA. You were "effectually drawn" to it.... :wavey:

HA! Maybe so, my friend, maybe so!

Blessings,

The Archangel

 

[Iconoclast]

I don't know why I bother....perhaps it is my deep and abiding affinity for Greek. In any event, Van, I noticed you never responded to this post:



Now, for this:



The truth is: You don't know Greek.

You say, "Why do they not post that en is often translated as through to show "by agency of" or "instrumentality" when en is followed by a dative noun?"

This really demonstrates your ignorance of Greek. The preposition ἐν is always followed by the dative. So, your question of "... when en is followed by a dative noun" is off by a mile as ἐν is always followed by a dative.

Furthermore, ἐν does not show agency or instrumentality in the way you suppose. Greek is not simply formulaic, as you suppose. ἐν can mean:

1. In
2. In, within, when, while, during
3. With (as in association)
4. Because of
5. By, with
6. With respect to/with reference to
7. With (as in manner)
8. With (as with possession)
9. Standard
10. As an equivalent to εις (with verbs of motion) [1]

What is more, as Wallace argues, ἐν + dative does not express the agency you want to see in the 2 Thessalonians 2:13 passage. Wallace claims, "if ἐν + dative is used to express agency, the noun in the dative must not only be personal, but must also be the agent who performs the action." [2] In fact, only one New Testament example expresses the so-called "Dative of Agency" and it is Luke 23:15 [3]

The "in sanctification" from 2 Thessalonians 2:13 demonstrates this non-agency beautifully:

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification [ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13, ESV)
​

"Sanctification" is not not something the individual does to himself; it is something God does. Sanctification (and belief, for that matter--ἐν governs both dative nouns here) are seen as being used by God to accomplish His goals. "God" is the subject of the sentence; "Chose" is the verb; to be saved--which is a prepositional phrase in Greek, not a verb--is the direct object. "Through sanctification...and belief..." is the indirect object.

God is doing the sanctifying and He is, in some sense, "causing" the belief, simply because He chose the brothers as the firstfruits.

If you want to look for instrumentality, if you want to see us being chosen "by means of" sanctification and belief, you'd need to see the preposition δια + genitive (or even, perhaps, the accusative).

Just because you can look at Strongs doesn't mean you have the first inkling about Greek. One needs to roll their sleeves up and get into it, to curse at it and to curse it, and to keep coming back to it over and over again because no matter how much you struggle with it you love it and won't let it go.

The Archangel


[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 372.

[2] Ibid., 373

[3] Ibid.

Thanks again Brother:thumbs::thumbs::wavey:

 

[Benjamin]

Originally Posted by Benjamin
Yep, Clarke got it exactly right. God's work is to influence and He does so in Truth, that we may respond in love of that Truth and that is the acceptable (true) purpose of His work. It is according to His will that we respond to the evidence set before us and yield to the truth, that is what He works for in truth. Otherwise He would be working for something that is meaningless, being already predetermined, how ridiculous to suggest God works for what He already has!

However, Ben, what you posted above isn't what John 6 is stating.

John 6 most definitely does not state "the work God desires to do," or "the work God desires of man to do." Not even, "This is the influence of God." Such renderings arent even implied in the original. Look for yourself at the original language!

Christ states emphatically, "This is the work of God."

John did not misquote Christ.

Methinks you need to take off those Determinist glasses, stop trying to cherry pick out lines to support your Determinist system and read and understand the rest of that sentence and more to get the big picture of God's works consist of.

Wasn't it your posts as well as others of your view that suggested the you all held to the true and most accurate rendering of Scriptures?

Yet, in this thread, the posts by those who oppose the OP demonstrate such a statement has been shown to be inaccurate to what actually takes place. Those whose view determines that God merely influences in truth so human involvement must be the determiner of the acceptance or rejection of salvation have done all the manipulating including a rewrite of the Scriptures to their favor.

Next time you or others make such a claim, look to your own doorstep. For there abides the very truth.

...meaningless rhetoric...

 

[DrJamesAch]

I don't know why I bother....perhaps it is my deep and abiding affinity for Greek. In any event, Van, I noticed you never responded to this post:



Now, for this:



The truth is: You don't know Greek.

You say, "Why do they not post that en is often translated as through to show "by agency of" or "instrumentality" when en is followed by a dative noun?"

This really demonstrates your ignorance of Greek. The preposition ἐν is always followed by the dative. So, your question of "... when en is followed by a dative noun" is off by a mile as ἐν is always followed by a dative.

Furthermore, ἐν does not show agency or instrumentality in the way you suppose. Greek is not simply formulaic, as you suppose. ἐν can mean:

1. In
2. In, within, when, while, during
3. With (as in association)
4. Because of
5. By, with
6. With respect to/with reference to
7. With (as in manner)
8. With (as with possession)
9. Standard
10. As an equivalent to εις (with verbs of motion) [1]

What is more, as Wallace argues, ἐν + dative does not express the agency you want to see in the 2 Thessalonians 2:13 passage. Wallace claims, "if ἐν + dative is used to express agency, the noun in the dative must not only be personal, but must also be the agent who performs the action." [2] In fact, only one New Testament example expresses the so-called "Dative of Agency" and it is Luke 23:15 [3]

The "in sanctification" from 2 Thessalonians 2:13 demonstrates this non-agency beautifully:

But we ought always to give thanks to God for you, brothers beloved by the Lord, because God chose you as the firstfruits to be saved, through sanctification [ἐν ἁγιασμῷ] by the Spirit and belief in the truth. (2 Thessalonians 2:13, ESV)
​

"Sanctification" is not not something the individual does to himself; it is something God does. Sanctification (and belief, for that matter--ἐν governs both dative nouns here) are seen as being used by God to accomplish His goals. "God" is the subject of the sentence; "Chose" is the verb; to be saved--which is a prepositional phrase in Greek, not a verb--is the direct object. "Through sanctification...and belief..." is the indirect object.

God is doing the sanctifying and He is, in some sense, "causing" the belief, simply because He chose the brothers as the firstfruits.

If you want to look for instrumentality, if you want to see us being chosen "by means of" sanctification and belief, you'd need to see the preposition δια + genitive (or even, perhaps, the accusative).

Just because you can look at Strongs doesn't mean you have the first inkling about Greek. One needs to roll their sleeves up and get into it, to curse at it and to curse it, and to keep coming back to it over and over again because no matter how much you struggle with it you love it and won't let it go.

The Archangel


[1] Daniel B. Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics: An Exegetical Syntax of the New Testament (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 1996) 372.

[2] Ibid., 373

[3] Ibid.

You are assuming grammatical absolutes that Wallace himself does not hold regarding prepositional phrases. See page 355-359 of the same book you quoted from Wallace.

Furthermore, you argue against instrumentality and then add to the text by saying God CAUSED the sanctification (the same argument for instrumentality that you accused Van of).

The assertion that the dative is NEVER used a "by means of" is patently false.

Philipians 4:6
μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν

BY MEANS OF PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION and it's IN THE DATIVE TENSE.

 

[The Archangel]

You are assuming grammatical absolutes that Wallace himself does not hold regarding prepositional phrases. See page 355-359 of the same book you quoted from Wallace.

You are misstating the argument.

I never said that prepositional phrases are "grammatical" absolutes. In fact, I argued that the Greek is not simply formulaic.

What I'm arguing, what Wallace is arguing, is that ἐν + the dative in the case of 2 Thessalonians 2:13 does not express the instrumentality that Van wants to see in the text.

The pages you list from Wallace do not address this issue.

Furthermore, you argue against instrumentality and then add to the text by saying God CAUSED the sanctification (the same argument for instrumentality that you accused Van of).

No, not at all. There is a huge difference in our arguments. Van argues that we are chosen based on our becoming sanctified and believing in the truth based on our own doing. He states we are "elected" in the present time based on what we do (which defeats Paul's use of the Aorist "He Chose" in 2 Thessalonians 2:13).

What I am arguing is that the grammar doesn't allow for his interpretation. Why? Because any instrumentality in the clause which includes ἐν + dative is talking about God's using these means (sanctification and belief), not us.

The assertion that the dative is NEVER used a "by means of" is patently false.

I never made that assertion.

Philipians 4:6
μηδὲν μεριμνᾶτε ἀλλ᾽ ἐν παντὶ τῇ προσευχῇ καὶ τῇ δεήσει μετὰ εὐχαριστίας τὰ αἰτήματα ὑμῶν γνωριζέσθω πρὸς τὸν θεόν

BY MEANS OF PRAYER AND SUPPLICATION and it's IN THE DATIVE TENSE.

Your example is incorrect and you make several errors here.

First, ἐν is coupled to the dative adjective "everything" (παντὶ). Second, the nouns "prayer" [τῇ προσευχῇ] and "supplication" [τῇ δεήσει] are not governed by the preposition ἐν. Third, the agency in this case, which is by means of, is applied to the subject of the sentence--the "you" plural, expressed by the imperative verbs "do not be anxious about anything" and the "let your requests be made known to God." The second verb "let your requests be made known" is done, instrumentally, by means of prayer and supplication.

So, the subject is using the dative nouns "prayer" and "supplication" in order to make their requests known to God. And, this situation is totally different from 2 Thessalonians 2:13 where God is the one acting, using sanctification and belief to accomplish His purposes, which has already been expressed by the verb "God has chosen" and the direct object "to be saved" (which, by the way, is part of a double accusative).

Fourth, the nouns you cite, "prayer" and "supplication" are datives not governed by any preposition, they are simple datives--which distinguishes these two nouns from the one in 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

The Archangel

 

[convicted1]

All this discussion from Archangle and DJA is Greek to me......


I know, I know, oh brother.... :laugh:

 

[Van]

1) The NASB is not inaccurate. It is your interpretation and not that one that is inaccurate. No quote will be forthcoming, so a material false statement.

2) It was YOU that stated that NNE translated the verse(s) as "This is the work of God." No quote will be forthcoming, so a second material false statement.

3) IT is YOU, that want some "movement" that the original does not allow. It is YOU that reside in denial of the truth that "en" is "FIXED" "STATIC" and such other terms that state is is NOT used to show movement. Yet another material false statement. This is what happens to folks who try to defend Calvinism. One falsehood after another. "En" is used somethings to show instrumentality or "by agency of"

Here is how the NET translates 2 Thessalonians 2:13.

But we ought to thank God always for you, brothers and sisters loved by the Lord, because God chose you from the beginning for salvation through sanctification by the Spirit and faith in the truth.

And Daniel B. Wallace is the Senior NT Editor. So all that malarkey of Archangel is simply misinformation.

How did God choose the Thessalonians from the beginning. By what agency? Oh through sanctification by the Spirit. Does agency show movement? Nope. Agency or Instrumentality shows, drum roll, agency or instrumentality. We were chosen by the agency of the Holy Spirit baptizing us into Christ, the sanctification by the Spirit.

So the non-stop effort at obfuscation continues. I say the apple is sweet, and Agedman, says Van said the apple is sour. It is a waste of time to discuss with people who would rather defend Calvinism than defend truth.

 

[Van]

And while we are presenting the views approved by Daniel B. Wallace, lets take a gander at 1 Peter 1:1-2.

1:1 From Peter,1 an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those temporarily residing abroad (in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia) who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by being set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ’s blood. May grace and peace be yours in full measure!

Pay no attention to those who deny sanctification can mean set apart, or that en cannot be accurately translated as showing "by the agency of."

 

[Van]

Pay no attention to Archangel, who simply provides disinformation. Here is another little gem,

He states we are "elected" in the present time based on what we do

No quote will be forthcoming, so yet another material false statement. We are elected during our lifetime by the agency of the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, i.e. we are set apart in Christ by the Holy Spirit. And the basis of this individual election is not anything we do to merit the selection, but our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. It is God alone who credits our worthless faith as righteousness, turning a pig's ear into a silk purse.
Thus salvation does not depend upon the man that wills to be saved, but upon God who has mercy.

Nearly 100% of the statement of my views by Calvinists misrepresent my views. Do not rely on anything they say.

 

[psalms109:31]

Those who believe in regeneration before faith i don't have any reason to listen to them and can never see any scripture the way they do. I don't see scripture through that veil.

God does not do the work if we do not listen and learn, and we will not be able to do the will of God without listening and learning.

John 6:40
For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise them up at the last day.”

John 6:45 It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’[Isaiah 54:13] Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me.

John 10:30
I and the Father are one.”

Matthew 11:29
Take my yoke upon you and learn from me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your souls.

John 14:12
Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

 

[The Archangel]

And while we are presenting the views approved by Daniel B. Wallace, lets take a gander at 1 Peter 1:1-2.

1:1 From Peter,1 an apostle of Jesus Christ, to those temporarily residing abroad (in Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, the province of Asia, and Bithynia) who are chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father by being set apart by the Spirit for obedience and for sprinkling with Jesus Christ’s blood. May grace and peace be yours in full measure!

Unfortunately, the phrase in Greek is: ἐν ἁγιασμῷ πνεύματος and it states, simply, "in sanctification of the spirit. There's a whole string of prepositions in that passage and this one isn't expressing the agency you assume it does, but that's because you have no facility whatsoever with Greek.

Pay no attention to those who deny sanctification can mean set apart, or that en cannot be accurately translated as showing "by the agency of."

Your desire, to give ἐν + dative the same agency as a verb isn't correct. The really funny thing is that you reference Wallace's NET Bible, yet you cannot for the life of you discuss why words are translated one way or another.

The Archangel

 

[The Archangel]

Ah, yes...the "liar, liar, pants on fire" response, with no interaction with the text.

I said (about Van): He states we are "elected" in the present time based on what we do

You deny that, but look at the quote below:

No quote will be forthcoming, so yet another material false statement. We are elected during our lifetime by the agency of the sanctification by the Holy Spirit, i.e. we are set apart in Christ by the Holy Spirit. And the basis of this individual election is not anything we do to merit the selection, but our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand. It is God alone who credits our worthless faith as righteousness, turning a pig's ear into a silk purse.
Thus salvation does not depend upon the man that wills to be saved, but upon God who has mercy.

I said you stated (a paraphrase): "we are "elected" in the present time based on what we do "

You say above: "We are elected during our lifetime"

You say above: " our faith provides our access to the grace in which we stand"

So, as you yourself have stated: We are elected in the present time (our lifetime) and it is our faith that causes God to elect us--it is what we do that "provokes" God's election of us.

But, given your many denials of what you said, you still aren't dealing with the text itself--at least not in any tangible way.

The Archangel

 

[Van]

Having been shown that "en + dative" is used to show instrumentality according to Wallace, i.e. 1 Peter 1:1-2, we get shuck and jive with a vague reference to what I desire to give to the instrumentality being shown. "By being set apart by the Spirit" shows instrumentality.

Here Archangel is slicing the baloney too thin. En + dative to show "Personal agency" is indeed rare. However, impersonal agency, people used as instruments, i.e. the Holy Spirit being used as the instrument used to set believers apart in Christ, is not so rare.

In sum, the objection raised is an effort at obfuscation, not enlightenment.

Note the incoherence, first the phrase does not mean by the [personal] agency of the Holy Spirit because of the grammar according to Wallace, then when Wallace uses the same phrase to show impersonal agency, why we get shuck and jive.

Pay no attention to Archangel, he presents plenty of cogent arguments that I know nothing of Greek (all true), but nothing to address how Dr. Daniel B. Wallace understands the grammar of en + dative in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as impersonal agency or instrumentality. None, zip, nada. Its the old, prove "A" (Van just regurgitates what he understands Wallace is teaching) and then claims "B" (en + dative is not used in 2 Thessalonians 2:13 as impersonal agency or instrumentality) is proved. LOL

P.S. In making a pathetic effort to show I said what I did not say, somehow this tidbit was omitted from his argument:

It is God alone who credits our worthless faith as righteousness, turning a pig's ear into a silk purse. Thus salvation does not depend upon the man that wills to be saved, but upon God who has mercy.

Note also he claims I authored Romans 5:2, rather than was presenting the inspired teaching of God. Anything to disparage, belittle and demean.