The Tulip is broken

[Van]

Yet another smear by the advocates of the TULIP. Go figure. All my statements are factually correct. I did not quote Wallace and to expect my statements to be reflected by actual quotes is ludicrous.

Does Wallace indicate that the gender does not matter? Nope. He says the idea that faith is the antecedent has the gender against it.

Does Wallace say faith is the gift in view? Nope. The clause referring to salvation as the conceptual antecedent is the idea of #3. Does God initiating faith equate with the Calvinist view of faith being instilled by irresistible grace? Nope.

I accurately supported by view that anyone who posts that Ephesians 2:8 supports the gift of faith does not understand the text as presented by D. Wallace on pages 334 and 335 of his book Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics.

 

[cygnusx1]

Yet another smear by the advocates of the TULIP. Go figure. All my statements are factually correct. I did not quote Wallace and to expect my statements to be reflected by actual quotes is ludicrous.

Does Wallace indicate that the gender does not matter? Nope. He says the idea that faith is the antecedent has the gender against it.

Does Wallace say faith is the gift in view? Nope. The clause referring to salvation as the conceptual antecedent is the idea of #3. Does God initiating faith equate with the Calvinist view of faith being instilled by irresistible grace? Nope.

I accurately supported by view that anyone who posts that Ephesians 2:8 supports the gift of faith does not understand the text as presented by D. Wallace on pages 334 and 335 of his book Greek Grammar, Beyond the Basics.

Wallace got it wrong , even in English (without a working knowledge of Gk) the text affirms faith ; the faith that saves us is not of ourselves , it is the gift of God ....it is plain.

 

[His]

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.




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;


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.


He goes on to conclude that:

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


Please note
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


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.



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

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



He further stated







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.

THANK YOU!!

 

[Van]

Now I have been called "dishonest" by the Calvinists. All they have folks is personal disparagement.

Ephesians 2:8 does not indicate "faith" is the gift in view, but rather "salvation by grace through faith."

What Wallace says is not that "faith" is the gift, but that it is doubtful faith is the gift.

 

[drstevej]

Ephesians 2:8 does not say faith is a gift of God. Greek grammar precludes that interpretation, yet it is posted again and again, as if truth does not matter. Salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God through our faith in Christ.

What Wallace says is not that "faith" is the gift, but that it is doubtful faith is the gift.

Note the shift.

 

[Van]

Who introduced Ephesians 2:8 and the claim that the gift was faith? New Dawn, post 601. Here is the quote:

We are saved by faith, which doesn't come from ourselves (so we cannot boast in our own salvation). (Ephesians 2:8)

Here is my response:

Ephesians 2:8 does not say faith is a gift of God. Greek grammar precludes that interpretation, yet it is posted again and again, as if truth does not matter. Salvation is not of ourselves, it is a gift of God through our faith in Christ.

Oworm asked me to parse the text, and I responded with:

Oworm, why don't you drop the act, and accept the view of D. Wallace? He is a Calvinist but is unwilling to trade in his integrity to falsely interpret the text.

 

[Van]

Folks, Calvinists claim grammar supports their view, but now with the internet, their claims are easily shown to be false, as I have done numerous times. The gift is salvation, and that not of ourselves, lest anyone should boast.

 

[Van]

Folks, no matter how many Calvinists post the falsehood, Ephesians 2:8 indicates salvation is a gift through faith, not that faith is a gift. D Wallace, a Greek scholar agrees with this position. Only those devoid of integrity make the argument that the pronoun transliterated as houtos (neuter gender) points to the female gender of the word translated faith. According to Wallace, when the pronoun points to the whole phrase, rather an individual word, the neuter form of the pronoun is used. And the phrase, by grace you have been saved through faith, refers to a persons salvation, so the gift is salvation not faith. QED

 

[drstevej]

Folks, no matter how many Calvinists post the falsehood, Ephesians 2:8 indicates salvation is a gift through faith, not that faith is a gift. D Wallace, a Greek scholar agrees with this position. Only those devoid of integrity make the argument that the pronoun transliterated as houtos (neuter gender) points to the female gender of the word translated faith. According to Wallace, when the pronoun points to the whole phrase, rather an individual word, the neuter form of the pronoun is used. And the phrase, by grace you have been saved through faith, refers to a persons salvation, so the gift is salvation not faith. QED

And Dan is the only greek scholar? His professor, Dr. S.L. Johnson, disagrees. Kuyper disagrees.

2-1

Your turn

 

[Van]

Folks as you can see, the Calvinists are blasting away, trying to hide that Ephesians 2:8 does not in the slightest suggest faith is a gift of God, based on Greek Grammar. So they try to change the subject and ask as many questions as possible to hide the fact that they advocate false doctrine. But D. Wallace, a Calvinist of integrity, simply says whether faith is a gift of God or not, you cannot support the idea from Ephesians 2:8, or words to that effect.

 

[drstevej]

But D. Wallace, a Calvinist of integrity, simply says whether faith is a gift of God or not, you cannot support the idea from Ephesians 2:8, or words to that effect.

SL Johnson & Abraham Kuyper are two Calvinists who disagree.
Both have credentials superior to Dan's.

 

[Van]

The Kuyper argument was presented in post #657 as follows:

See Abraham Kuyper, the Work of the Holy Spirit, Ch. 39.

First, that the construction of a neuter pronoun with a feminine noun as it's antecedent is not a mistake, but excellent Greek.
​

He cites Kuhner's Greek Grammar,

A neutral demonstrative pronoun is frequently used to refer to a preceding masculine or feminine noun, when the meaning expressed by this word is taken in a general sense.
​

He cites examples from Plato, Xenophon, and Demosthenes (which I can cite specifically if you like). He continues,

But it is evident that these citations upset all the quasi-learning of this defective scholarship; and the words, "And not of yourselves, it is the gift of God,"just with the neutral pronoun, in the purest Greek, can refer to faith; hence all this fuss about the reference to gender, not only is without any foundation, but leaves a very poor impression regarding the scholarship of men who raised the objection.

Moreover, we must now show not only that the ancient rendering of Eph. 2:8 may be correct, but also that it can not be anything else.​

Thus the argument is for gender shift, the antecedent of the neuter pronoun is faith. And it is this argument, gender shift, which D. Wallace addresses on pages 334 and 335 of his book. Wallace concludes that it is doubtful faith is the antecedent of the pronoun.

​

 

[drstevej]

"Doubtful." Clear indication that he views it as not clearly decided.

So it's 2 - 1/2

Kuyper shows that the gender shift is excellent Greek and cites examples to support his view and he cites Kuhner in support.

*surrender Dorothy*

 

[Van]

Oworm understands D Wallace has blown his entire argument out of the water, and that I was simply referring to the text book on Greek grammar, Beyond the Basics. So he changes the subject to my behavior! ROFLOL

The Gift of faith is a false doctrine and Ephesians 2:8 provides no support for it according to Greek scholars.

The theory put forth by Kuyper was shown to be invalid by D. Wallace because the construction of Ephesians 2:8 differs from the construction where gender shift occurs.

 

[drstevej]

The theory put forth by Kuyper was shown to be invalid by D. Wallace because the construction of Ephesians 2:8 differs from the construction where gender shift occurs.

So that's why Wallace uses the word "doubtful,"

Stop adding 2+2 and getting 6

 

[Van]

Some Calvinists apparently do not understand it means nothing to cite Calvinists who accept the "gift of faith view" for there are at least an equal number of non-Calvinist scholars that reject the gift of faith view. No, the reason D. Wallace's view carries weight is because he is a Calvinist.

 

[Van]

Folks, the TULIP is broken because it is unbiblical. There is no actual support for the gift of faith in scripture, and in fact the action of believing is clearly the action of the person receiving the gift of salvation. Further, the act of receiving salvation is not a meritorious work.

 

[drstevej]

Folks, the TULIP is broken because it is unbiblical. There is no actual support for the gift of faith in scripture, and in fact the action of believing is clearly the action of the person receiving the gift of salvation. Further, the act of receiving salvation is not a meritorious work.

you talkin to a mouse in your pocket?

 

[cygnusx1]

Folks, the TULIP is broken because it is unbiblical. There is no actual support for the gift of faith in scripture, and in fact the action of believing is clearly the action of the person receiving the gift of salvation. Further, the act of receiving salvation is not a meritorious work.

Originally Posted by van

And please stop distorting my position, I did not say I sourced my faith, I specifically said God did. I said God gave me the capability to trust in Christ in my natural unregenerate state.




​

 

[His]

What we see from Wallace’s analysis of Eph. 2:8, there is good reason to believe that there has not been a “strong exegetical tradition” to argue that faith is not a grace gift. Wallace rules out the possibility that option one and two that “this” refers to either grace or faith exclusively. Rather, “this” is the conceptual antecedent to the entire preceding clause that leads to the interpretation that both grace and faith are gifts from God

http://timmybrister.com/2007/08/08/the-alabama-baptist-and-dortian-calvinism-response-3/