Dr. Wallace did not say what you claim he says. You are perverting Dr. Wallace. You are slandering Dr. Wallace.
Knowing, brethren beloved, your election of God.
5 For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
Dr. Wallace said no such thing. Anyone that can understand English can see that the first part of the text is not about Paul but about how the gospel did not versus how it did come to "YOU" it is about the Thessalonians not about Paul - read it!
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance;
Neither is the latter part of the text exclusively about Paul as you claim, as it too is primarily about the "YOU" or the Thessalonians and their knowledge not merely about "Paul" but about a plural group "WE" or can't you read
as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
Can you read English? The latter part continues to be about the Thessalonians primarily and their knowledge of not merely Paul but about the "manner of men" or PLURAL "we" that brought the gospel to them.
The former part of the text explains about "OUR GOSPEL" and how it came to them, while the latter part of the text speaks about the "manner of men" who brought the gospel unto them.
Grammatically the subject in the first phrase is "Gospel" while "our" is an adjective modifying the gospel. The verb is "came" and the direct object is "you" while the three prepositional phrases explain how the gospel came to them. Plain-n-simple!
Dr. Wallace cannot possibly be that clueless as you present him, and that is most likely why you still refuse to show the readers his quotation because you are slandering him.
For our gospel came not unto you in word only, but also in power, and in the Holy Ghost, and in much assurance; as ye know what manner of men we were among you for your sake.
Let us just identify the four basic grammatical parts of the first clause in this verse.
1. The Subject - "Gospel"
2. The verb - "came"
3. The Direct object "you"
4. Prepositional phrases - "in....in....in....in."
Now let us identify the four basic grammatical parts of the second clause in this verse
1. Subject "ye"
2. verb "know"
3. Direct object - "what"
4. Prepositional phrases "among you....for your sake"
Now, Van claims that Dr. Wallace supports his view that the first clause is descriptive of Paul instead of descriptive of the manner in how the gospel of Paul came to the Thessalonican's.
We can agree with Dr. Wallace that in the general sense verse five relates to the gospel and Person of Paul. We feel that it is in this general sense is in view by Dr.Wallace.
However, it is indisputable that both clauses do not refer to Paul in the same sense. The first deals with the GOSPEL of Paul and how it came to the Thessalonican's and that is purely a matter settled by grammar and terms. The second clause deals with the PERSON of Paul and His associates and that is a matter of grammar and terms.
So we can agree with Dr. Wallace in a GENERAL sense that verse 5 refers to Paul and his associates, but we cannot agree with Van's use of Dr. Wallace's GENERAL statement to be proof that both clauses refer to Paul in an EQUAL sense. Van is attempting to invalidate the grammar and meaning of the first clause by taking Dr. Wallace's GENERAL comment about verse five and claiming Dr. Wallace is referring to both clauses equally in the same sense. As a grammarian Dr. Wallace would never make that kind of application to verse 5 as that would demonstrate pure ignorance of both English and Greek Grammar.
So, until Van can produce a SPECIFIC statement by Dr. Wallace that both clauses EQUALLY refer to the Person of Paul and his associates he is abusing Dr. Wallace. Perhaps that is why Van refuses to provide the source document from which he is drawing Dr. Wallace's statement. We would ask him to provide the source document so that readers on this forum can see if Dr. Wallace is merely making a GENERAL statement or applying this specifically to the first clause EQUALLY with the second clause.
Last edited by a moderator: