Thats because Calvinists do NOT face the issues honestly, but will try every means possible not to accept the truth, and place their faith more in their warped theological notions, than in the sound Word of God. A typical example is John 3:16, where they will fight to have the meaning of "kosmos" changed, even though the Greek lexicons agree that the "human race" is meant. But, to accept this meaning would be a real crisis for any Calvinist. </font>[/QUOTE]what in the world are you talking about? read my quote and read your answer. has anyone told you that you have 0 listening skills?
-
Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!
Calling all Calvinists
- Thread starter icthus
- Start date
JustinWindsor
New Member
So, in your estimation, Lavender, Arminius and Wesley were more gifted theologians than Calvin, Spurgeon, Gill, and Sproul? Needless to say, not in mine.
You can disagree with me, but I won't insult you. I don't see insults as being loving and patient.
You can disagree with me, but I won't insult you. I don't see insults as being loving and patient.
All the Calvinists I know, myself included, accept that meaning. It has not caused any crisis for me.
This "dealing" is .... um ... well, not even worth teh time to pull it up. It is misguided on so many fronts, it cannot be taken seriously. Wallace is one of the foremost Greek experts of this era. Wallace makes no attempt to limit world. I don't even know if he is a Calvinist. Having most of the Greek Grammar, I can say he certainly doesn't openly espouse it. To say otherwise is misleading. If this attempt was a serious one, then it should be rejected wholeheartedly.
He messes up on teh position of Calvinists, and on what Wallace says about the subjunctive mood. My suspicion is that the others he cites (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) probably say the same thing. I don't have them here to check them though.
This piece is just bad.
All the Calvinists I know, myself included, accept that meaning. It has not caused any crisis for me.
This "dealing" is .... um ... well, not even worth teh time to pull it up. It is misguided on so many fronts, it cannot be taken seriously. Wallace is one of the foremost Greek experts of this era. Wallace makes no attempt to limit world. I don't even know if he is a Calvinist. Having most of the Greek Grammar, I can say he certainly doesn't openly espouse it. To say otherwise is misleading. If this attempt was a serious one, then it should be rejected wholeheartedly.
He messes up on teh position of Calvinists, and on what Wallace says about the subjunctive mood. My suspicion is that the others he cites (Robertson, Dana and Mantey) probably say the same thing. I don't have them here to check them though.
This piece is just bad. </font>[/QUOTE]No Larry, its not bad.The fact is that Wallace IS a Calvinist, and has written his grammar with that in mind. I certainly do not holf your view that he is a foremost Greek expert.
The person writing that article doesn't even seem to know enough about Greek grammar to understand what Wallace is saying, and you apparently don't know enough Greek grammar to see that he misunderstands Wallace.
But Daniel Wallace isn't the only one saying what he's saying, is he? Notice how almost every translation (done by committees of people who know the Greek language) translates with "will", "should" or "shall" rather than "might" of "may". They choose those words because they understand this to be purpose-result clause, too. This isn't just some sort of conspiracy of a particular theological viewpoint; but rather, it is good translators of various theological viewpoints dealing honestly with the grammar.
Here's the ESV:
The NLT:
But Daniel Wallace isn't the only one saying what he's saying, is he? Notice how almost every translation (done by committees of people who know the Greek language) translates with "will", "should" or "shall" rather than "might" of "may". They choose those words because they understand this to be purpose-result clause, too. This isn't just some sort of conspiracy of a particular theological viewpoint; but rather, it is good translators of various theological viewpoints dealing honestly with the grammar.
Here's the ESV:
The NIV:
The KJV: [QUOTE....]that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. [/QUOTE]
The NLT:
You've got no basis for an argument here.
Wallace may be a Calvinist, but it doesn't come through in his Greek Grammar. If you think it does, why don't you pull your copy off the shelf and give me some page numbers that you have marked as Calvinistic. I will be glad to look it up.
As for Wallace being one of the foremost Greek scholars of this era, you can disagree all you want, but there is a reason why his book is one of hte most widely used books in second year Greek.
The truth is that this article you linked is simply wrong.
As for Wallace being one of the foremost Greek scholars of this era, you can disagree all you want, but there is a reason why his book is one of hte most widely used books in second year Greek.
The truth is that this article you linked is simply wrong.
4His_glory
New Member
Wallace is the Robertson of his day. His grammer is stellar. I rely on it quite a bit as I prepare messages. I have never noticed anything that screams Calvinism.
To compare Wallace with A T Robertson tells me your level of understanding Greek grammar.
Danial Wallace's ability as a scholar is very evident in his treatment of the evidence of Cyprian on 1 John 5:7, and his grammatical insights of the same passage. In both instances in conclusions are very flawed. Cyprian most certainly quotes 1 John 5:7, a fact that is also admitted by Dr Scrivener, who otherwise rejects the disputed words. He wrote: "it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver.7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely on ver.8 a spiritual meaning" (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vil.II, 405). There is NO Textual scholar since Scrivener that can be considered anything as good has him. Most certainly NOT the likes of Wallace, Metzger, Aland, Black, etc. As for Wallace's remarks on the Greek grammar of this verse, it either displays his lack of understanding fo the simple rules of the grammar employed, or, because of his rejection of the words anyway, tried to show from the grammar, that the disputed words do not form part of this passage.
The NIV:
The KJV: [QUOTE....]that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life. </font>[/QUOTE]The NLT:
You've got no basis for an argument here. [/QUOTE]
Russell55, your post here shows your ignorance of Greek grammar. You CANNOT translate the subjunctive as "shall not perish", as done in the NIV, as this would require the mood in the Greek to be "indicative". Are you saying that I am wrong here? If so, prove it.
Icthus, I have proven you wrong quoting the foremost Greek grammar of this era. I suspect the other Greek grammars also support this. What in the world are you looking for (besides agreement)? When you don't listen to people who know what they are talking about, then there is no hope. Admit you don't know it all, and accept that others know more than you do. Be humble enough to learn.
4His_glory
New Member
To compare Wallace with A T Robertson tells me your level of understanding Greek grammar.
Danial Wallace's ability as a scholar is very evident in his treatment of the evidence of Cyprian on 1 John 5:7, and his grammatical insights of the same passage. In both instances in conclusions are very flawed. Cyprian most certainly quotes 1 John 5:7, a fact that is also admitted by Dr Scrivener, who otherwise rejects the disputed words. He wrote: "it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver.7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely on ver.8 a spiritual meaning" (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vil.II, 405). There is NO Textual scholar since Scrivener that can be considered anything as good has him. Most certainly NOT the likes of Wallace, Metzger, Aland, Black, etc. As for Wallace's remarks on the Greek grammar of this verse, it either displays his lack of understanding fo the simple rules of the grammar employed, or, because of his rejection of the words anyway, tried to show from the grammar, that the disputed words do not form part of this passage. </font>[/QUOTE]Your rude and uncalled for remarks should not be tollerated. How do you know what my understanding of Greek Grammer is?
Your opinion regarding Scrivner, Wallace, Robertson etc. is exactally that- YOUR OPINION. Wallaces grammer is a well written book. You seem to reject his work because of your predetermined bias against Calvinism.
Yes, you can. When it's in a purpose clause.
So, you're saying you know better than a translation committee made up of Greek Scholars?
No, it doesn't. Not in a purpose clause.
The subjunctive mood in a purpose clause actually functions more like a verb in the indicative mood. It is
not referring to the possibility of the action, but telling the purpose of the action.
To compare Wallace with A T Robertson tells me your level of understanding Greek grammar.
Danial Wallace's ability as a scholar is very evident in his treatment of the evidence of Cyprian on 1 John 5:7, and his grammatical insights of the same passage. In both instances in conclusions are very flawed. Cyprian most certainly quotes 1 John 5:7, a fact that is also admitted by Dr Scrivener, who otherwise rejects the disputed words. He wrote: "it is surely safer and more candid to admit that Cyprian read ver.7 in his copies, than to resort to the explanation of Facundus [vi], that the holy Bishop was merely on ver.8 a spiritual meaning" (A Plain Introduction to the Criticism of the New Testament, vil.II, 405). There is NO Textual scholar since Scrivener that can be considered anything as good has him. Most certainly NOT the likes of Wallace, Metzger, Aland, Black, etc. As for Wallace's remarks on the Greek grammar of this verse, it either displays his lack of understanding fo the simple rules of the grammar employed, or, because of his rejection of the words anyway, tried to show from the grammar, that the disputed words do not form part of this passage. </font>[/QUOTE]Your rude and uncalled for remarks should not be tollerated. How do you know what my understanding of Greek Grammer is?
Your opinion regarding Scrivner, Wallace, Robertson etc. is exactally that- YOUR OPINION. Wallaces grammer is a well written book. You seem to reject his work because of your predetermined bias against Calvinism. </font>[/QUOTE]Just because someone writes a good book, does not mean that what they write is always accurate. My judgement is NOT because that I am anti-calvinistic, but based on my own research from far greater Greek scholars than Wallace.
Larry, unlike you, as shown from you posts on this thread, I am very open to learning. As I have said before, Wallace's level of knowledge of the Greek grammar can clearly be seen from this treatment of the Greek of 1 John 5:7, which he wrongly supposes supports its removal from the passage. Lets not be lead astray by a well written book, and no, Wallace is NOT the foremost Greek scholar today. This is a really silly statement!
A couple of things. First, I am very open to learning. It is my life. However, I am very careful to learn from people who know things. I try to be a critical thinker, and as a result, I don't accept substandard opinions or arguments. Many of the arguments tried in here (on both sides) are so factually weak, or logically weak, they don't even deserve to be read, much less to be responded to. However, there are some good arguments on both sides. We need to be able to sift through the junk and see the good stuff.
Second, Wallace's treatment of 1 John 5:7 says nothing about his knowledge of Greek grammar. The debate in 1 John 5:7 is not about grammar at all. I think that even TCassidy, who supports the inclusion of 5:7, would acknowledge that the debate is not about Greek grammar, but rather about manuscript transcription and transmission.
Third, you say Wallace supports its removal from the passage. That is a bad type argument becuase you have smuggled your conclusion into the argument. The truth is that the debate is about including it. Wallace does not support its removal; he says it was never there to begin with. Wallace, along with most scholars (not all), believe that 1 John 5:7 was later added in, and there is considerable weight to that argument, though it is not incontrovertible. Whatever the case, it is not about Greek grammar at all. I am inclined to believe that it should not be there, based on the grammar and argument of the passage, and the weak mss support for it. Others disagree with me and that is fine. TCassidy can make a very thorough argument why it should be included. I really don't care. The doctrine of the Trinity does not rise or fall on that verse.
Who do you think is a greater Greek scholar than Wallace today? Give us an idea of your qualifications to talk about Greek. Tell us how much Greek you have taken, what texts you are familiar with, etc. In short, tell us why we should take your opinion about Greek over anyone else's? (I am not saying we shouldn't. You may have great qualifications to talk about Greek. Tell us what they are.)
Second, Wallace's treatment of 1 John 5:7 says nothing about his knowledge of Greek grammar. The debate in 1 John 5:7 is not about grammar at all. I think that even TCassidy, who supports the inclusion of 5:7, would acknowledge that the debate is not about Greek grammar, but rather about manuscript transcription and transmission.
Third, you say Wallace supports its removal from the passage. That is a bad type argument becuase you have smuggled your conclusion into the argument. The truth is that the debate is about including it. Wallace does not support its removal; he says it was never there to begin with. Wallace, along with most scholars (not all), believe that 1 John 5:7 was later added in, and there is considerable weight to that argument, though it is not incontrovertible. Whatever the case, it is not about Greek grammar at all. I am inclined to believe that it should not be there, based on the grammar and argument of the passage, and the weak mss support for it. Others disagree with me and that is fine. TCassidy can make a very thorough argument why it should be included. I really don't care. The doctrine of the Trinity does not rise or fall on that verse.
Who do you think is a greater Greek scholar than Wallace today? Give us an idea of your qualifications to talk about Greek. Tell us how much Greek you have taken, what texts you are familiar with, etc. In short, tell us why we should take your opinion about Greek over anyone else's? (I am not saying we shouldn't. You may have great qualifications to talk about Greek. Tell us what they are.)
Here's another example of a subordinate clause introduced by hina with a verb in the subjunctive mood (In other words, a purpose clause):
The clause is stating the PURPOSE (or result) of God having mercy. Paul not having sorrow upon sorrow is a certain result of God's action rather than a mere possibility.
Pastor Larry is correct in that Dan Wallace does not address the gender discordance in the comma except to say, "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender." (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1996, page 332)
Even though his (rather weak, in my opinion) attempt to dismiss the gender discordance by assuming a personification of the neuter nouns does seem to be an acknowledgment that it is a grammatical problem if the comma is not canonical. Not to mention his theory of personification fails to address the fact that inanimate objects are rarely, if ever, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides which, Dr. Wallace seems to overlook verse 6 where "Pneuma" is not masculinatized to personalize the Spirit's witness. It remains neuter.
Larry, I can forgive you for your lack of knowledge of the facts on 1 John 5:7. But, to say that you "don't care" about the true reading here, has dropped you 80% in my estimation!
I have alread dealt with the issue with the Greek grammar of 1 John 5:7, and you can see one of my responses here, http://www.baptistboard.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi/topic/4/2315/3.html?
With regards to my own qualifications on Greek. I am not one to boast of them. As I consider that whether you are a scholar, or layperson, is not the point, but sound understanding and correct interpretation. What would you care if I told you that I have a First Class Honours in Classical, and Biblical Greek? Would you then consider my arguments any more?
With regards to Greek scholars better than Wallace. Are you kidding? Dr. J. Harold Greenlee is without doubt streets ahead than Wallace in Greek. And, so is, Dr. Spiros Zodhiates.
Pastor Larry is correct in that Dan Wallace does not address the gender discordance in the comma except to say, "the fact that the author has personified water and blood, turning them into witnesses along with the Spirit, may be enough to account for the masculine gender." (Daniel Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, Grand Rapids, MI, Zondervan, 1996, page 332)
Even though his (rather weak, in my opinion) attempt to dismiss the gender discordance by assuming a personification of the neuter nouns does seem to be an acknowledgment that it is a grammatical problem if the comma is not canonical. Not to mention his theory of personification fails to address the fact that inanimate objects are rarely, if ever, "masculinatized" for the purpose of personification. Besides which, Dr. Wallace seems to overlook verse 6 where "Pneuma" is not masculinatized to personalize the Spirit's witness. It remains neuter.