That's why it's called grace.

[Skala]

Paul says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,”

BUT WHAT DID HE SAY BEFORE AND AFTER THIS!??!?!?!??!

 

[PrincetonGuy]

If your view was correct, then every single person would be purified from every lawless deed, and be a people for His own possession, zealous for good deeds.

These conclusions based upon a grammatically correct interpretation of Titus 2:11 have already been refuted earlier in this thread.

God's grace actually DOES something.

God’s grace does something when we allow it to through faith. Do you believe in the doctrine of justification by faith, or do you believe in the doctrine of justification by election?

 

[PrincetonGuy]

BUT WHAT DID HE SAY BEFORE AND AFTER THIS!??!?!?!??!

Nothing that Paul has said changes the basic rules of Greek or English grammar.

 

[Skala]

Nothing that Paul has said changes the basic rules of Greek or English grammar.

Nobody has argued for grammer, they've argued for context.

Observe:

"Everyone sit down!"

A teacher says this to her classroom of students.

By your reasoning(?), the students should understand that the teacher wants everyone in the entire universe, both past present and future, to sit down.

Observe:

"I beat my wife last night"

You heard this statement as you walked past two men talking.

But what you didn't hear was what was said before and after:

We play chess all the time in the evenings
I beat my wife last night
It was a close match.

By your reasoning(?), it doesn't matter what was said before or after, it is plain that the man physically abused his wife last night.

 

[Hammster]

Paul says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” not “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all these types of people.”

It does. But it doesn't fit with your theology. So that would explain all of the distractions with Greek rules.

But to make it fit, you have to say "oh, but it's not universalism because people need to believe", even though Paul doesn't mention faith here. Or in the next chapter where he talks about regeneration. You have to assume it.

You would be better off just taking the text at face value instead of flirting with universalism, making a left turn at the last second.

 

[Hammster]

These conclusions based upon a grammatically correct interpretation of Titus 2:11 have already been refuted earlier in this thread.


God’s grace does something when we allow it to through faith. Do you believe in the doctrine of justification by faith, or do you believe in the doctrine of justification by election?

And again, you have to add something to the text that's not there.

 

[Skala]

It does. But it doesn't fit with your theology. So that would explain all of the distractions with Greek rules.

But to make it fit, you have to say "oh, but it's not universalism because people need to believe", even though Paul doesn't mention faith here. Or in the next chapter where he talks about regeneration. You have to assume it.

You would be better off just taking the text at face value instead of flirting with universalism, making a left turn at the last second.

Exactly!

Paul clearly says that this grace he's describing "brings salvation". Then he says it "trains us to renounce worldliness and live godly lives"

So he's not talkinga bout a potential salvation, he's talking about a grace that results in these things. Thus he can't be tallking about each individual in the human race or all people would:

1) Be saved (because he says he verse brings salvation, not brings potential salvation)
2) Renounce worldliness (because that's what this grace, which comes to people, does. Not potentially, but actually)
3) Live godly lives (not potentially, but actually)

Not only does PG have to insert faith into the equation, he has to also insert the idea that each of the other things Paul mentions only means potentially.

It's 100% pure eisegesis (reading something into the text on the page that isn't there)

 

[PrincetonGuy]

And again, you have to add something to the text that's not there.

Yes, we do—but that is far better than breaking the rules of Greek and English grammar to change the text.

 

[Hammster]

Yes, we do—but that is far better than breaking the rules of Greek and English grammar to change the text.

Thanks for admitting that you need eisegesis to make your view fit.

And the only one breaking any rules is you by ignoring context. Your view doesn't fit with what Paul says before and after. I've shown how a correct view flows from start to finish through the chapter.

 

[Skala]

Yes, we do—but that is far better than breaking the rules of Greek and English grammar to change the text.

Nobody is changing the text.

We are saying no more and no less than the text says.

You are doing both.

You are adding to the text (your own admission), and also subtracting from the text (making the things Paul mentioned only potentials, not actuals)

 

[Hammster]

Nobody is changing the text.

We are saying no more and no less than the text says.

You are doing both.

You are adding to the text (your own admission), and also subtracting from the text (making the things Paul mentioned only potentials, not actuals)

Maybe Greek rules allow for that.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

I'm not pretending the context means all types. I'm demonstrating it. But if you want to hold to universalism, do so in the Unorthodox area.

Thanks for admitting that you need eisegesis to make your view fit.

How low are you willing to crawl and slither to defend an interpretation that is grammatically indefensible? For over 10 years I have vigorously opposed the doctrine of Universalism in my CF posts, and I have vigorously opposed the doctrine of Universalism in this very thread. Moreover, I was very open and honest in admitting that Titus 2:11, severed from its immediate and fuller context, could be interpreted to be teaching universalism, but I ALSO explained that Paul’s Epistle to Titus was not written to a stranger; it was written to Paul’s friend and brother in Christ Titus who already knew that our personal salvation from sin is realized only as we accept it by faith. In spite of knowing from your posts how you dishonestly and for your own personal amusement manipulate the words of others to radically distort their statements to their detriment, I was very open and honest in admitting that to correctly understand Titus 2:11, it is necessary to add to the text the concept of salvation through faith that Paul teaches in his epistles. This is not “eisegesis,” it is sound exegesis.

And the only one breaking any rules is you by ignoring context. .

How many falsehoods are you will to tell? As I posted above, Paul says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” not “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all these types of people.” In the Greek New Testament, the word ἄνθρωπος refers back to a person who has been mentioned earlier in the narrative in only five verses: Matt. 12:13; Mark 3:5, 5:8; John 4:50; and Acts 19:16. In all five of these verses, the word ἄνθρωπος is immediately preceded by the definite article as it MUST be when referring back to a person who has been mentioned earlier. In Titus 2:11, the word ἄνθρωπος is NOT immediately preceded by the definite article and it CANNOT be referring back to a person or persons who have been mentioned earlier. The rule in English grammar is very similar, and in all five of these verses, the word ‘man’ is immediately preceded by the definite article. Therefore, your interpretation CANNOT possibly be correct, and the theological implications of Paul’s words MUST be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the grammar.

Your view doesn't fit with what Paul says before and after.

The basic rules of Greek and English grammar that your posts are ignoring are not my “view”—they are the basic rules of Greek and English grammar.

I've shown how a correct view flows from start to finish through the chapter.

The truth is that your view, from start to finish, ignores and violates the basic rules of Greek and English grammar as detailed above.

 

[Hammster]

How low are you willing to crawl and slither to defend an interpretation that is grammatically indefensible? For over 10 years I have vigorously opposed the doctrine of Universalism in my CF posts, and I have vigorously opposed the doctrine of Universalism in this very thread. Moreover, I was very open and honest in admitting that Titus 2:11, severed from its immediate and fuller context, could be interpreted to be teaching universalism, but I ALSO explained that Paul’s Epistle to Titus was not written to a stranger; it was written to Paul’s friend and brother in Christ Titus who already knew that our personal salvation from sin is realized only as we accept it by faith. In spite of knowing from your posts how you dishonestly and for your own personal amusement manipulate the words of others to radically distort their statements to their detriment, I was very open and honest in admitting that to correctly understand Titus 2:11, it is necessary to add to the text the concept of salvation through faith that Paul teaches in his epistles. This is not “eisegesis,” it is sound exegesis.



How many falsehoods are you will to tell? As I posted above, Paul says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” not “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all these types of people.” In the Greek New Testament, the word ἄνθρωπος refers back to a person who has been mentioned earlier in the narrative in only five verses: Matt. 12:13; Mark 3:5, 5:8; John 4:50; and Acts 19:16. In all five of these verses, the word ἄνθρωπος is immediately preceded by the definite article as it MUST be when referring back to a person who has been mentioned earlier. In Titus 2:11, the word ἄνθρωπος is NOT immediately preceded by the definite article and it CANNOT be referring back to a person or persons who have been mentioned earlier. The rule in English grammar is very similar, and in all five of these verses, the word ‘man’ is immediately preceded by the definite article. Therefore, your interpretation CANNOT possibly be correct, and the theological implications of Paul’s words MUST be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the grammar.



The basic rules of Greek and English grammar that your posts are ignoring are not my “view”—they are the basic rules of Greek and English grammar.



The truth is that your view, from start to finish, ignores and violates the basic rules of Greek and English grammar as detailed above.

Let's say you are correct, for sake of argument. What is Paul's point in bringing this up? The "for" has to relate to the previous verses in some way.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Let's say you are correct, for sake of argument. What is Paul's point in bringing this up? The "for" has to relate to the previous verses in some way.

In Titus 2:1-10, Paul gives instructions to Titus regarding several classes of people—classes of people that include neither himself nor Titus. In v. 11, he makes the critical point that “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” including himself and Titus, instructing them too to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of their great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.

 

[Hammster]

In Titus 2:1-10, Paul gives instructions to Titus regarding several classes of people—classes of people that include neither himself nor Titus. In v. 11, he makes the critical point that “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” including himself and Titus, instructing them too to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of their great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.

Okay. So you don't really have an answer. You could have just said so.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

Okay. So you don't really have an answer. You could have just said so.

Shame on you!

 

[Hammster]

Shame on you!

Why? I'm not the one who pretended to answer a question. If you'd like to try again, be my guest.

 

[twin1954]

PG, you are ignoring the context of the sentence in order to focus on the construction of the sentence. There are other ways to read and understand the verse in its context. The actual subject is the grace of God and the verb is has appeared. The word bringing salvation is an adjective and is in the nominative which agrees with the noun/subject and describes what the grace of God does.The words all men are in the dative which shows a personal interest in the subject but they are the indirect object of the verb appeared.

Now we both know that the word all must have a qualifier. All men in this case is determined by the context of the surrounding sentences. Paul isn't speaking about every man but to those to whom the saving grace of God has appeared who are taught to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world looking for the blessed hope Christ Jesus.

For you to apply the sentence as though it stands alone is as poor grammar and syntax as you accuse others of.

 

[PrincetonGuy]

PG, you are ignoring the context of the sentence in order to focus on the construction of the sentence.

This is a blatantly false statement. I have studied the context with great care and discussed it and its implications in this thread, including in my very accurate answer to a question by Hammster:

In Titus 2:1-10, Paul gives instructions to Titus regarding several classes of people—classes of people that include neither himself nor Titus. In v. 11, he makes the critical point that “the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” including himself and Titus, instructing them too to deny ungodliness and worldly desires and to live sensibly, righteously and godly in the present age, looking for the blessed hope and the appearing of the glory of their great God and Savior, Christ Jesus.

There are other ways to read and understand the verse in its context.

There are two possible interpretations of Titus 2:11.

“For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,”

Or

“For the grace of God has appeared to all men, bringing salvation”

So far in this thread, only the first of these two interpretations have been discussed. The second is found in the KJV which departed from the interpretation found in both the Bishops’ Bible and the Geneva Bible. For now, we can continue discussing the first of these two interpretations.

Now we both know that the word all must have a qualifier. All men in this case is determined by the context of the surrounding sentences.

These statements are not true. As I posted in posted above,

The Greek word πᾶς in this context can mean only one thing—‘all’. The Greek word ἄνθρωπος in this context can mean only one thing—‘human beings’. Whatever this verse is saying about the salvation of men, it is saying that it happened to ‘all human beings’. The question that needs to be resolved is, “What is this verse saying happened to all human beings?”

The Greek adjective πᾶς in Titus 2:11 modifies one and only one group—human beings. It does NOT modify any subset of people. Moreover, πασιν ανθρωποις DOES mean ‘every human being’ and, therefore, it DOES NOT and CANNOT mean ‘all types of humans’. This verse shoots Calvin’s doctrine of election (not to be confused with the biblical doctrine of election) in the heart and not just in the foot; and that is the ONLY reason why some people have insisted that the verse does not mean what it so very plainly means. I realize that the majority is not always right, but the interpretation that I am advocating for is the interpretation held by the very large majority of Christians—and especially those Christians who study the New Testament in its original language.

Paul says, “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,” not “For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all these types of people.” In the Greek New Testament, the word ἄνθρωπος refers back to a person who has been mentioned earlier in the narrative in only five verses: Matt. 12:13; Mark 3:5, 5:8; John 4:50; and Acts 19:16. In all five of these verses, the word ἄνθρωπος is immediately preceded by the definite article as it MUST be when referring back to a person who has been mentioned earlier. In Titus 2:11, the word ἄνθρωπος is NOT immediately preceded by the definite article and it CANNOT be referring back to a person or persons who have been mentioned earlier. The rule in English grammar is very similar, and in all five of these verses, the word ‘man’ is immediately preceded by the definite article. Therefore, your interpretation CANNOT possibly be correct, and the theological implications of Paul’s words MUST be interpreted in a manner that is consistent with the grammar.

The meaning of the Greek adjective πᾶς in any given context is dependent upon whether the noun it modifies is singular or plural, and whether the noun is used with the definite article. When the Greek adjective πᾶς is used with an adjective in the plural but without the definite article (as it is in Titus 2:11), it means: “all people/men, everyone.” (BADG Lexicon, p. 782)

The same Greek construction is found in the following verses,

Acts 22:15. ‘For you will be a witness for Him to all men of what you have seen and heard.

Rom. 5:12. Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned—

Rom. 5:18. So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men

Rom. 12:17. Never pay back evil for evil to anyone. Respect what is right in the sight of all men.
18. If possible, so far as it depends on you, be at peace with all men.

1 Cor. 7:7. Yet I wish that all men were even as I myself am. However, each man has his own gift from God, one in this manner, and another in that.

1 Cor. 15:19. If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

2 Cor. 3:2. You are our letter, written in our hearts, known and read by all men;

Phil. 4:5. Let your gentle spirit be known to all men. The Lord is near.

1 Thes. 2:15. who both killed the Lord Jesus and the prophets, and drove us out. They are not pleasing to God, but hostile to all men,

1 Tim. 2:4. who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth.

1 Tim. 4:10. For it is for this we labor and strive, because we have fixed our hope on the living God, who is the Savior of all men, especially of believers.

Titus 2:11. For the grace of God has appeared, bringing salvation to all men,

Acts 22:15 and 2 Cor. 3:2 use the word ‘all’ in a hyperbolic sense, but none of the verses use the word ‘all’ to mean “all types of humans”. 1 Tim. 4:10 is quite interesting to me.

No, the expression “all men” means exactly the same thing in all of these verses. In none of these verses does the context influence the meaning of the expression “all men”. This is just as true as the expression “πασιν ανθρωποις” in the original Greek. Acts 22:15 and 2 Cor. 3:2 use the word ‘all’ in a hyperbolic sense, and the sense is hyperbolic for the very reason that ‘all men’ means ‘all men’.

Paul isn't speaking about every man but to those to whom the saving grace of God has appeared who are taught to live soberly, righteously and godly in this present world looking for the blessed hope Christ Jesus.

As I have posted above, basic rules of both Greek and English prove that you are severely mistaken.

For you to apply the sentence as though it stands alone is as poor grammar and syntax as you accuse others of.

I am NOT interpreting the sentence out the context of the chapter, and I am interpreting the expression πασιν ανθρωποις in the same manner in which it is used in ALL occurrences of it the New Testament (see post #65).

 

[Hammster]

This is a blatantly false statement. I have studied the context with great care and discussed it and its implications in this thread, including in my very accurate answer to a question by Hammster:

It wasn't an accurate answer. All you did was recap the chapter. I did not as you to do that.