The Tulip is broken

Rep Daddy said:

Duh. Dispensationalism includes a belief in the rapture.

Click to expand...

Er, uh, I should have said a pre-trib, rapture. Sorry!

I narrowed the field with that qualification, didn't I?

RD, I think I will search for some of your comments over in the dispensational threads.

NewGuy101 said:

How about you show us his position and the fact that he changed his views about slavery?

Click to expand...

I do not want to get into a discussion of “some old teacher’s theology”. The old teachers made mistakes and got some things right, so what does the scripture say? Modern day Greek Scholars have more to work with and receive more peer review. As I said Hodge did not address the grammar in Eph. 2:8 and his rational is questionable (see my post 853). What you are not addressing is the issue with the grammar (see post 732). Charles Hodge did miss interpret some scripture some time to fit his believes at the time, which could have happened with other scripture, so we need more scholarly support that has with stood peer review. An exp:

This concept of "ornamental womanhood" appeared in at least 14 articles by Charles Hodge and the learned gentlemen of Princeton Seminary between the years 1825 and 1855. The point was that while women could express their piety in private, the public realm was only for men. As with the case of slavery, Presbyterian men in the 19th century defended the status quo that prohibited women, e.g., from voting, and from owning property. They found selected proof texts from the context of the ancient Near East in Scripture and used these to justify their suppression of women.
We often conveniently forget that leading Presbyterian theologians were passionate and vehement in their rejection of women's rights. Charles Hodge, in a negative review of a book that attacked slavery, justified slavery by the analogy of the necessary subordination of women. He wrote: "If women are to be emancipated from subjection to the law which God has imposed upon them;if, in studied insult to the authority of God we are to renounce, in the marriage contract, all claim to obedience, there is no deformity of human character from which we turn with deeper loathing than from a woman forgetful of her nature and clamorous for the vocations and rights of men."
These remarks are expanded in Dr. Rogers's forthcoming book, Reading the Bible and the Confessions: The Presbyterian Way, to be published in May 1999 by Geneva Press.

JDS said:

Er, uh, I should have said a pre-trib, rapture. Sorry!

I narrowed the field with that qualification, didn't I?

RD, I think I will search for some of your comments over in the dispensational threads.

Click to expand...

Look under drstevej

Rep Daddy said:

Look under drstevej

Click to expand...

Actually, he should look for Rep Daddy. When you change your name, it changes on every post you've written. (I've gone back and checked mine out and they all are changed. )

A New Dawn said:

Actually, he should look for Rep Daddy. When you change your name, it changes on every post you've written. (I've gone back and checked mine out and they all are changed. )

Click to expand...

If you are the OP the original name is in the thread list:

Saints & Aints
drstevej

Rep Daddy said:

If you are the OP the original name is in the thread list:

Saints & Aints
drstevej

Click to expand...

Really? I gotta go check that out. BRB.

A New Dawn said:

Really? I gotta go check that out. BRB.

Click to expand...

Use search function

Van said:

Hi New Dawn, because the pronoun ("that") is in the neuter gender, it can refer back to a conceptual antecedent. D. Wallace explains all this in Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. The conceptual antecedent is salvation by grace through faith. Salvation is the gift in view, and salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God.

D. Wallace also explains why the argument presented by Kuyper is without merit, see pages 334 and 335.

Every time you see a Calvinist express the idea that Ephesians 2:8 supports its false doctrine of the gift of faith, know that Calvinism is thus supported by faulty understanding of the text.

Click to expand...

FOLKS

Today I took delivery of Dr Wallaces's work "GREEK GRAMMAR. BEYOND THE BASICS". I have also recieved a reply to an email I sent Dr Wallace last week.

Time restrictions, due in part to the need of preparations for a Greek class this evening, debar me from posting anything of substance at this time.

However I will say that I have read over the page numbers mentioned in the above quote and for the sake of context have read part of the chapter on the semantic categories of pronouns of which these pages are part.

Before dealing with the actual wording of the quote above I will say that the representation of Dr Wallaces words on the said pages have been somewhat partial. I am reminded of the illustration used by a great Scottish minister of a drunk man who was leaning on a lamp post. "He was using it for support rather than illumination"

By way of a pre-amble statement which should give you folks some idea of where I will be going with this in my next post I would like to draw your attention to one part of the quote above which states:

D. Wallace also explains why the argument presented by Kuyper is without merit, see pages 334 and 335.

Click to expand...

Contrary to that statement there is absolutely no mention made of Kuyper or the argument that he states as being without merit. The words "argument" "merit" "presented" or "Kuyper" are simply no where in Wallaces text on those pages!

oworm said:

FOLKS

Today I took delivery of Dr Wallaces's work "GREEK GRAMMAR. BEYOND THE BASICS". I have also recieved a reply to an email I sent Dr Wallace last week.

Time restrictions, due in part to the need of preparations for a Greek class this evening, debar me from posting anything of substance at this time.

However I will say that I have read over the page numbers mentioned in the above quote and for the sake of context have read part of the chapter on the semantic categories of pronouns of which these pages are part.

Before dealing with the actual wording of the quote above I will say that the representation of Dr Wallaces words on the said pages have been somewhat partial. I am reminded of the illustration used by a great Scottish minister of a drunk man who was leaning on a lamp post. "He was using it for support rather than illumination"

By way of a pre-amble statement which should give you folks some idea of where I will be going with this in my next post I would like to draw your attention to one part of the quote above which states:



Contrary to that statement there is absolutely no mention made of Kuyper or the argument that he states as being without merit. The words "argument" "merit" "presented" or "Kuyper" are simply no where in Wallaces text on those pages!

Click to expand...

I am not surprised. The antagonists have often engaged in "selective reading" and "selective quoting" of their sources.

Rep Daddy said:

Use search function

Click to expand...

I used the Thread Starter icon on the main index page in UTD, and it indeed shows that drstevej is the OP of 6 threads, and that Rep Daddy started none.

Could that be true? Did you only start 6 threads in UTD in all the time you posted there?


The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil of I Nephi 13
drstevej

Telestials, Terrestials and Celestials... OH MY!
drstevej

Heavenly Mother and Christmas
drstevej

Mormons Golden Questions & Strategy (Multi-page thread 1 2)
drstevej

Swart & drstevej Discussion Thread
drstevej

Curious.

(Sorry for the derail, but you learn something new every day!)

A New Dawn said:

I used the Thread Starter icon on the main index page in UTD, and it indeed shows that drstevej is the OP of 6 threads, and that Rep Daddy started none.

Could that be true? Did you only start 6 threads in UTD in all the time you posted there?


The Great and Abominable Church of the Devil of I Nephi 13
drstevej

Telestials, Terrestials and Celestials... OH MY!
drstevej

Heavenly Mother and Christmas
drstevej

Mormons Golden Questions & Strategy (Multi-page thread 1 2)
drstevej

Swart & drstevej Discussion Thread
drstevej

Curious.

(Sorry for the derail, but you learn something new every day!)

Click to expand...

Ah, wonderful memories. I am not sure RepDaddy started any UTD threads.

JDS said:

he might even believe in the rapture.

Click to expand...

He does.

I believe Wayne Grudem also believes in the Rapture (don't quote me on that though - I'm not sure) - he is also one who would fall into the Charismatic Calvinist camp - whereas MaCarthur does not.

You will find a lot of various people who accept the concept of TULIP as laid out in the Canons of Dort but who hold to a great variety of different beliefs in regards to a lot of different issues. Baptism is a great example of this. You have Presbyterians that practice padeo-baptism and reformed Baptists that practice the opposite.

I'm sure you realize this already - but this is a good example of why it is not a good idea to automatically lump all Calvinists into the same category.

Rep Daddy said:

Ah, wonderful memories. I am not sure RepDaddy started any UTD threads.

Click to expand...

I just noticed what is missing is the thread you created for us to debate back after I joined up. hmmm...............

A New Dawn said:

I just noticed what is missing is the thread you created for us to debate back after I joined up. hmmm...............

Click to expand...

Ah, those Book of Abraham days!

Rep Daddy said:

Ah, those Book of Abraham days!

Click to expand...

How thoughtful of you to remember.

LOL.

Van said:

Oworm, my statement was factual, and your smear is just that, a smear. The argument, which was attributed to another person, was shown to be without merit. QED

Here are the facts. D. Wallace is a Calvinist but holds the position that "faith" is not the gift in view in Ephesians 2:8. Therefore, every time you see that argument, you know that the Calvinist argument is based on a misunderstanding of the text.

The TULIP is broken and no amount of personal disparagement of me will alter that truth.

Click to expand...

Mikey has dealt with the error of Wallace , you gripping onto a "Calvinist" for dear life , only because he supports your mistaken view of Eph 2:8 is so funny ........ the Tulip is not broken no matter how much you spam 'your' thread .


the whole of salvation is of the Lord , it isn't a combined operation , every moment in ourselves we are unworthy.

Van said:

Oworm, my statement was factual, and your smear is just that, a smear. The argument, which was attributed to another person, was shown to be without merit. QED

Here are the facts. D. Wallace is a Calvinist but holds the position that "faith" is not the gift in view in Ephesians 2:8. Therefore, every time you see that argument, you know that the Calvinist argument is based on a misunderstanding of the text.

The TULIP is broken and no amount of personal disparagement of me will alter that truth.

Click to expand...

D. Wallace is no Apostle, though you treat him as such. Dan's teacher, Dr. S. Lewis Johnson, held the opposite view.

Johnson was born in Birmingham, Alabama and grew up in Charleston, S.C., graduating from College of Charleston with an A. B. degree in 1937. He was converted in Birmingham, while in the insurance business, through the teaching of Dr. Donald Grey Barnhouse. He left the insurance business in 1943 to enter Dallas Theological Seminary, from which he received a Th.M. (1946) and a Th.D. (1949). Upon graduation he became a professor at Dallas Theological Seminary, where he taught Greek, Hebrew, and systematic theology for 31 years. After retiring from Dallas Seminary, he became Professor of Biblical and Systematic Theology at Trinity Evangelical Divinity School in Deerfield, Illinois from 1980-1985, as well as serving as a visiting Professor of New Testament at Grace Theological Seminary, Winona Lake, Indiana. From 1985-1993 he served as a visiting Professor of Systematic Theology at Tyndale Theological Seminary in Badhoevedorp, Amsterdam, Netherlands.

Click to expand...

I'll go with Abraham Kuyper and S. Lewis Johnson. Dan has a way to go to be in the league of either.

Van said:

D. Wallace explains all this in Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics. The conceptual antecedent is salvation by grace through faith.

Click to expand...

This is an accurate representation and reflects what Dr Wallace states in the text of his work.

However the quote below departs from Dr Wallaces thesis and is inserted by Van to support his own thesis.

Salvation is the gift in view, and salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God.

Click to expand...

Neither that statement nor the implication exists in Dr Wallaces chapter on Pronouns that salvation is the gift in view in Ephesians 2:8. In his sub category Constructio ad Sensum (page 330) he states;

Daniel B Wallace said:

A small group of demonstative pronouns involve a natural agreement with their antecedents that overrides strict grammatical concord. As such they are illustrations of constructions according to sense (construcio ad sensum). This natural agreement may involve gender or, much more rarely, number. Frequently, the agreement is conceptual only, since the the pronoun refers to a phrase or clause rather than a noun or other substantive. As might be expected, not a few of these instances are debatable and exegetically significant.
(Daniel B Wallace. Greek Grammar. Beyond the Basics. page 330)

Click to expand...

On the pages that are under discussion (334-335 of Wallaces Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics) Williams in the sub category 2] Debatable example References Ephesians 2:8 as one such example. He presents 4 positions of interpretation of the text:

1. "Grace" as the antecedent.

2. "Faith" as the antecedent

3. The concept of a grace by faith salvation.

4. kai touto having an adverbial force with no antecedent.

Daniel B Wallace said:

The first and second options suffer from the fact that the pronoun is neuter while grace and faith are feminine........

Click to expand...

He goes on to conclude that:

On a grammatical level, then, it is doubtful that either "faith" or "grace" is the antecedent

Click to expand...

Please note that Williams says "DOUBTFUL" and not "without merit" or "precluded" He goes on

Daniel B Wallace said:

More plausible is the third view. That touto refers to the concept of a grace by faith salvation. As we have seen, touto regularly takes a conceptual antecedent. Whether faith is seen as a gift here or anywhere else in the New Testament is not addressed by this.

Click to expand...

Please note

Daniel B Wallace said:

Whether faith is seen as a gift here or anywhere else in the New Testament is not addressed by this

Click to expand...

So faith is not precluded,it is simply not addressed because it is the whole concept of salvation by grace through faith and not any one element on its own. Van chops out the element of Salvation from the concept and posits that as the antecedent of touto. He then goes on to assert that Wallaces takes the position that faith is not a gift from God and presents it here without any citational quotes!
Wallace goes on

Daniel B Wallace said:

A fourth point of view is that kai touto is adverbial, though this view has surprisingly made little impact on the exegetical literature. If adverbial kai touto is intensive,meaning "And at that and, especially," Without having any antecedent. It focuses on the verb rather than any noun. If this is the force in Eph 2:8 then the text means "for by grace you are saved through faith, and [you are saved] especially not by your own doing; it is the gift of God"

Click to expand...

Wallace concludes.
And this is especially important in view of the statement by Van who says Wallace holds that the greek grammar of Eph 2:8 precludes faith as a gift.

Daniel B Wallace said:

The issues here are complex and cannot be solved by grammar alone. Neverthe less,syntactical considerations do tend toward one of the latter views

Click to expand...

My own conclusion. Which I have checked with my own Greek teacher who teaches both Hebrew and Latin too, and with our assistant pastor who is well grounded in biblical languages, is that you cannot separate out any one element of the concept that the gift that is reffered to is salvation by grace through faith. In the doctrine of salvation you cannot have any unless you have all and you cannot have any unless God initiates them.
Wallace concurs with this, in some measure in his footnotes on page 335 where he says

Daniel B Wallace said:

that for faith to save,the Spirit of God must initiate the conversion process

Click to expand...

As is apparent from the direct and extensive quotes I have provided from the same pages that Van cites as his source in support of his position. It is clear that Wallace makes none of the assertions that Van claims he does. Wallace gives a balanced and open presentation of four exegetical positions and then concludes that the grammar alone does not answer the question as decisively as Van would lead us to think.

Folks

The discussion here is about the doctrines of grace commonly referred to as TULIP. The discussion of faith came up as early as post no 5 and as you will see that post was authored by Van. So we are not departing from the thread subject per se and the subject is very much on topic as it relates to monergistic salvation and all that is contained within that doctrine.

FOLKS
It has been shown in this post that Van has misrepresented a scholar of the highest esteem and deliberatly injected meaning into his statements that were never there. This is further demonstrated from the quotes below as ther refer to the position of Abraham Kuyper and his thoughts in Eph2:8

In response to his statement that

D. Wallace also explains why the argument presented by Kuyper is without merit, see pages 334 and 335

Click to expand...

He further stated

Van said:

my statement was factual

Click to expand...

Van says that his statement was factual and in so far as HE actually said it that is true but I can assure you folks that Kuypers position is neither represented nor refuted as "without merit" in Wallaces text!


Please note that this is not a ploy to derail this thread. My brethren and I are only to willing to engage with our opponents in debate although it has to be said that there is often more heat than light generated!

Having said that I think its crucial to the integrity of the gospel that we engage in such discussions with an attitude of humility and respect for those we disagree with.

Further. It is unpleasant when we have to engage with those who claim to bear the name of Christ and yet at the same time disparage and attack other Christians theological positions as false and heretical without anything close to an informed and measured rhetoric.

The question here has gone beyond the actaul text under discussion and the works cited. The question is whether we should engage with someone who refuses to operate within the boundaries of acceptable debating ettiquete . Someone who cites sources without proper quotation of the source.But worse still,someone who deliberately misrepresents their sources and manipulates them to say something that they never did.

It is quite simply dishonest and more gravely it brings the gospel into disrepute among those who have the misfortune to witness such behaviour.

My own contributions to this thread are terminted on the grounds that I do not want to encourage any further disparagement or dishonest representations from the thread author.

That should be the end of it.